A conservative government watchdog filed a federal election complaint on March 27 alleging that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez improperly used campaign money to pay a Boston-based psychiatrist nearly $19,000 for what her campaign disclosed as "leadership training and consulting." The complaint, submitted to both the Federal Election Commission and the Office of Congressional Conduct, asks regulators to investigate whether the payments amounted to prohibited personal use of donor dollars.
The National Legal and Policy Center named Ocasio-Cortez, her campaign committee, and its treasurer in the filing, which details three 2025 payments to Dr. Brian Boyle totaling $18,725. Fox News Digital reported that the payments were made on March 10, May 15, and Oct. 1, 2025, in amounts of $11,550, $2,800, and $4,375.
The core question is straightforward under federal election law: Would the expense exist regardless of the candidate's campaign? If the answer is yes, it cannot legally come from campaign coffers. The NLPC complaint contends that paying a psychiatrist for what may have been personal therapy crosses that line, and that labeling the disbursements as consulting compounded the problem by misreporting the expenditures to the FEC.
Neither Ocasio-Cortez's office nor Dr. Boyle responded to requests for comment, Fox News Digital reported. The complaint itself noted that "communications to Dr. Boyle and AOC's campaign to comment on these expenditures went unanswered."
Boyle is described in the filing as an interventional psychiatrist who specializes in treating depression, PTSD, and anxiety, specifically through ketamine therapy. The New York Post has reported that he is regarded as a leading authority on ketamine. The complaint zeroes in on the gap between that professional profile and the campaign's description of his services.
NLPC counsel Paul Kamenar wrote in the complaint:
"Nowhere does Dr. Boyle advertise offering 'Leadership Training' or 'consulting' services to candidates or their campaign."
That mismatch sits at the heart of the allegation. If Boyle does not hold himself out as a leadership coach or political consultant, the complaint argues, then the campaign's characterization of the payments looks like a cover story for something else entirely.
Kamenar pressed the point further in the filing, as the New York Post reported:
"There is reason to believe that AOC's use of campaign funds to pay for a psychiatrist who has no experience in 'leadership training' was not for a 'bona fide campaign or political purpose,' but rather for personal psychiatric therapy for AOC or her campaign staff."
The complaint does not claim to have direct evidence of what services Boyle actually rendered. It asks regulators to find out. But the circumstantial case, a psychiatrist known for ketamine therapy, paid with donor money, under a vague consulting label, is the kind of fact pattern that invites scrutiny.
The complaint draws on Ocasio-Cortez's own public statements. In a 2021 interview with People, the New York Democrat said: "Oh yeah, I'm doing therapy but also I've just slowed down." That admission, offered voluntarily years ago, now forms part of the watchdog's argument that psychiatric services for the congresswoman would be a personal expense, one that predated and exists independently of any campaign activity.
As previously reported, Ocasio-Cortez's campaign funneled the payments to a psychiatrist linked to hallucinogenic treatments, a detail that has drawn additional attention to the nature of the services involved.
Federal election law and House ethics guidance, cited on pages 5 through 7 of the filing, require that campaign expenditures be both bona fide and verifiable. The NLPC complaint contends that the Ocasio-Cortez campaign failed on both counts, first by spending donor money on what may have been personal therapy, and second by describing those payments in a way that obscured their true purpose.
The timing of the complaint intersects with Ocasio-Cortez's recent legislative activity in an uncomfortable way. Just last week, the congresswoman spoke during a House Health Subcommittee hearing and advocated for loosening restrictions on Schedule I drugs, including psychedelic substances that researchers say may treat PTSD and traumatic brain injuries.
"Right now our law says these drugs have zero medical application but the science says something else," Ocasio-Cortez told the subcommittee. She added that "the wealth of medical research shows that these are potential treatments for treatment resistant PTSD, traumatic brain injuries, but the schedule classification really prevents researchers from continuing to do work on this."
Ketamine itself is not a Schedule I substance, it is a legal, FDA-approved anesthetic used off-label for psychiatric treatment. But the congresswoman's public enthusiasm for expanding access to mind-altering therapies, paired with her campaign's payments to a psychiatrist known for ketamine treatments, creates a pattern that the NLPC clearly wants investigators to examine.
Just The News noted that the matter remains an allegation only, with no findings or independent verification yet reported. The FEC and the Office of Congressional Conduct have not publicly acknowledged receipt of the complaint or indicated whether they will open an investigation.
What makes this complaint notable is not just the dollar amount, $18,725 is not an enormous sum by congressional campaign standards, but the evasion baked into the disclosure. If a campaign pays a psychiatrist and calls it "leadership training," voters and regulators reviewing those filings have no way to know what actually happened. That is the whole point of disclosure requirements: to let the public see where donor money goes.
The NLPC's demand is direct. Kamenar wrote: "NLPC requests that the FEC and OCC immediately investigate the facts and circumstances of these payments and impose appropriate penalties and disciplinary sanctions against AOC."
Whether regulators act remains to be seen. The FEC has a long history of deadlocking on enforcement matters, and the Office of Congressional Conduct has its own institutional reluctance to move quickly. But the complaint is now on the record, the payment amounts are specific, and the campaign's silence speaks for itself.
Speculation about Ocasio-Cortez's broader political ambitions has only grown in recent months, making questions about how she handles campaign money all the more relevant to voters evaluating her record.
The facts here are not complicated. A sitting congresswoman's campaign paid a psychiatrist who specializes in ketamine therapy. The campaign called it consulting. The psychiatrist does not advertise consulting services. The congresswoman has publicly discussed her own therapy. And when asked to explain, both the campaign and the doctor said nothing.
Donors who wrote checks to help elect a representative deserve to know whether their money paid for campaign work or someone's personal medical bills. That is not a partisan question. It is a basic test of honest government, one that Ocasio-Cortez has so far declined to answer.
