Federal campaign finance filings from 2025 indicate that the campaign of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) disbursed nearly $19,000 to a psychiatrist recognized for his work in ketamine therapy, prompting scrutiny regarding the legality of these expenditures. The payments, totaling $18,725, were made across multiple instances to Dr. Brian Boyle, a Boston-based psychiatrist, and were officially categorized as "leadership training and consulting" in the campaign's records.
Dr. Boyle serves as the chief psychiatric officer at Stella, a clinic specializing in alternative mental health treatments. Among the therapies offered at Stella is ketamine therapy, which has gained traction for its application in treating conditions such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Despite its growing use, ketamine therapy remains a subject of debate due to its potential hallucinogenic effects and associated risks. The nature of Dr. Boyle's practice has contributed to the questions surrounding the appropriateness of the campaign's payments.
Campaign finance regulations in the United States strictly prohibit the use of campaign funds for personal expenses. Critics are now contending that payments to a psychiatrist, particularly one with a focus on medical treatment, do not clearly align with legitimate campaign activities. The Ocasio-Cortez campaign has yet to provide a public explanation regarding the specific services rendered or who participated in these sessions, leaving a critical gap in understanding whether the spending qualifies as permissible under federal law.
Paul Kamenar, representing the National Legal and Policy Center, has publicly stated that the payments appear improper. Kamenar asserted that utilizing campaign contributions for what seems to be personal use would constitute a violation of federal statutes. He further questioned the classification of the expenses, noting that Dr. Boyle's professional background does not typically involve political consulting or leadership training, which is how the payments were itemized in the campaign's filings.
The central issue revolves around the categorization of these payments and the directness of their connection to campaign operations. Should the services provided be deemed personal in nature, the expenditure could violate federal rules, irrespective of any broader justification the campaign might offer. Conversely, if the services were genuinely related to campaign strategy or performance, the campaign would be obligated to provide clear documentation demonstrating that connection. As of now, no such explanation has been publicly offered by Representative Ocasio-Cortez or her campaign.
The payments were recorded in March, May, and October of 2025, each time under the "consulting" category, according to reports. This classification is expected to be a key point of examination if the spending is subjected to regulatory review, as oversight bodies typically assess whether expenses are congruent with campaign activity or if they primarily confer a personal benefit to the individual.
Representative Ocasio-Cortez has previously expressed support for alternative mental health treatments and has been open about her own experiences with therapy. Following the January 6 Capitol protest, she disclosed that she sought therapy, describing the event as traumatic and emphasizing her need for time to process it. She has also advocated for increased research into psychedelics and supported legislation aimed at expanding studies into substances like psilocybin and MDMA. While this background provides context for her views on mental health care, it does not, in itself, resolve the question of whether campaign funds were an appropriate source for these specific payments.
Although no formal investigation has been announced concerning these payments, the situation is attracting considerable attention. Similar instances of questionable campaign spending have previously resulted in penalties when funds were determined to have been used improperly. The lack of a clear explanation from the Ocasio-Cortez campaign means the matter remains unresolved, placing pressure on the congresswoman to clarify how and why the funds were utilized. Federal law mandates that campaign funds are restricted to political use, and any expense that primarily benefits an individual rather than the campaign can be deemed a violation.
