Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's campaign paid nearly $19,000 to a psychiatrist known for ketamine treatments last year, categorizing the payments as "leadership training and consulting" in federal filings. The psychiatrist in question has no background in leadership development or political consulting.
Ocasio-Cortez's committee sent three payments to Dr. Brian Boyle totaling $18,725 across 2025, according to Federal Election Commission records. The disbursements were $11,550 in March, $2,800 in May, and $4,375 in October.
Federal law bars candidates from spending campaign funds on personal expenses. The FEC applies what it calls the "irrespective test," asking whether an obligation would exist regardless of a candidate's campaign or official duties. In plain English: if you need a psychiatrist, whether or not you were running for Congress, your donors shouldn't be footing the bill.
Dr. Brian Boyle serves as Chief Psychiatric Officer at Stella, a mental health clinic chain with more than 20 locations. According to The Daily Caller, he trained at Harvard Medical School and spent nine years as an attending psychiatrist at McLean Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital. His credentials are impressive. None of them involves campaign strategy, leadership coaching, or political consulting.
Paul Kamenar, counsel to the National Legal and Policy Center, told the New York Post the spending appeared to violate the FEC's standard:
"While she describes these expenses as 'leadership training,' Dr. Boyle has no expertise in that area, unlike several Democratic campaign consultants."
Kamenar didn't stop there:
"This looks like yet another example of misuse of campaign contributions."
The word "yet another" is doing some work in that sentence. Americans for Public Trust filed a separate ethics complaint in March 2025 over other disbursements labeled as "training," Fox News reported. A pattern of vague expense labels starts to look less like sloppy bookkeeping and more like a system.
Ocasio-Cortez called the allegations "100% wrong" on social media. She did not, however, explain what kind of "leadership training and consulting" a ketamine psychiatrist provides that a political consultant could not. She did not clarify why three separate payments across three different months were necessary. She did not describe what services were rendered.
A flat denial without specifics is not a rebuttal. It's a press release.
This is the same congresswoman who has built an entire brand around financial accountability, railing against corporate excess and demanding transparency from everyone except, apparently, her own campaign committee. When Republicans face questions about campaign expenditures, AOC and her allies treat the FEC filings as a sacred text. When her filings raise questions, the allegations are simply "100% wrong." No elaboration required.
The psychiatrist's association with ketamine treatments adds another layer to the story. Ketamine has gained traction in certain mental health circles as a treatment for depression and PTSD, but it remains a controlled substance with serious considerations. Psychiatrist Dr. Simon Dosovitz cautioned that ketamine "is a strongly dissociative drug."
To be clear, there is no evidence in the public record that Ocasio-Cortez received ketamine treatments. But the decision to hire a psychiatrist whose professional identity is tied to ketamine therapy, and then describe his services as "leadership training," invites every question her campaign is now fielding. Campaigns that have nothing to hide tend not to label psychiatric services with euphemisms.
Ocasio-Cortez herself has shown interest in psychedelic-adjacent policy. She co-sponsored a bipartisan bill with Rep. Dan Crenshaw that funded Pentagon studies on psychedelics for servicemembers with PTSD and traumatic brain injuries. That legislation became law as part of the fiscal year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act. Legislative interest in psychedelic research is one thing. Routing campaign money to a ketamine psychiatrist under a creative expense label is another.
Campaign finance law exists for a simple reason: donors give money to elect a candidate, not to subsidize that candidate's personal life. The "irrespective test" is not ambiguous. If Ocasio-Cortez needed psychiatric services, she is free to pay for them. Out of her own pocket. Like every other American.
The broader pattern here is familiar. Progressive politicians preach institutional accountability while treating their own campaigns like personal slush funds. They demand corporate transparency while hiding behind vague line items. They insist the rules apply to everyone, then dismiss scrutiny of their own filings with two words on social media.
Three payments. Nearly $19,000. A psychiatrist with no consulting background. And a label that doesn't match the provider. Those are the facts. Ocasio-Cortez can call them "100% wrong" all she wants. The FEC filings are right there.
