The campaign-finance complaint filed by a watchdog group alleges that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez used campaign money to pay a Boston psychiatrist for services reported as “leadership training and consulting,” and the filing asks federal regulators to investigate whether those payments were actually for personal psychiatric care. The complaint lists three payments in 2025 totaling $18,725 to Dr. Brian Boyle and argues those expenses may have been misreported. The filing points to federal Election Commission and House ethics rules that bar campaign funds from being used for personal expenses. This article walks through the core claims, the amounts and dates involved, the doctor’s specialty, and the request for formal review.
A conservative watchdog, the National Legal and Policy Center, submitted a formal complaint to the FEC and the Office of Congressional Conduct alleging the payments were improperly classified. The complaint centers on three payments made in 2025 that the campaign disclosed as “Leadership Training and Consulting.” Those entries are listed in the filing as $11,550, $2,800 and $4,375, adding up to $18,725.
NLPC counsel Paul Kamenar framed the allegation bluntly in the complaint, writing: “NLPC alleges that AOC’s expenditure of almost $19,000 of campaign funds in 2025 to psychiatrist Dr. Brian W. Boyle ostensibly for ‘leadership training and consulting’ was expended instead for personal psychiatric services provided to AOC or members of her campaign staff,” and added: “Accordingly, those expenses were also misreported by the campaign committee with the FEC.” The group is urging immediate regulatory scrutiny and possible penalties.
The complaint does not simply rest on the dollar totals; it emphasizes the nature of Dr. Boyle’s practice and whether his services align with typical campaign needs. Boyle is described as an interventional psychiatrist who treats depression, PTSD and anxiety, often using ketamine therapy. The filing notes, “Nowhere does Dr, Boyle advertise offering ‘Leadership Training’ or ‘consulting’ services to candidates or their campaign,” and also records that “Communications to Dr. Boyle and AOC’s campaign to comment on these expenditures went unanswered.”
Federal election law and House ethics guidance are central to the complaint’s legal argument. The filing argues campaign funds cannot be used for personal expenses and stresses that a proper test is whether the expense would exist regardless of candidacy. If the services were therapeutic rather than campaign-related, the complaint says those payments could be prohibited personal use under FEC rules.
“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,” Kamenar wrote. That line frames the case the watchdog wants regulators to examine, asking for verifiable documentation and penalties if the filing’s assertions are confirmed.
The complaint itself stops short of proving wrongdoing and asks the agencies to determine whether the campaign misreported the entries and whether campaign-finance or House rules were violated. From a Republican viewpoint, these are straightforward concerns about transparency and the proper use of donor dollars. The matter now rests with the regulators to subpoena records, demand explanations and decide if enforcement is warranted.
Ocasio-Cortez has publicly discussed using therapy in the past, and the complaint acknowledges that context while focusing on the specific payments at issue. “Oh yeah, I’m doing therapy but also I’ve just slowed down,” Ocasio-Cortez told People in 2021. She has also pushed for rethinking Schedule I classifications to expand scientific research into psychedelic and related treatments.
On the subject of those broader drug-policy remarks she made during a committee hearing, she argued: “Right now our law says these drugs have zero medical application but the science says something else,” and added: “Not only that, but 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.” The hearing clip is available below for reference.
