Palantir, the AI giant that preaches US dominance
The company's reach spans the global economy, with banks, hospitals, the US government, and the Israeli military among its ever-expanding client roster.
'We want and need this country to be the strongest, most important country in the world,' Alex Karp, Palantir's CEO, recently declared at a client conference in Palo Alto, California, where AFP was the only media outlet present.
In armed conflicts — most notably in Ukraine — Palantir's tools help evaluate potential targets in real-time, using multiple sources, including biometric data and intercepted phone calls.
'I'm super proud of… what we do to protect our soldiers… (using our AI) to kill our enemies and scare them, because they know they will be killed,' the graying, curly-haired billionaire continued, wearing a tight white T-shirt.
Washington has been filling Palantir's coffers.
In the first quarter, the company received $373 million from the US government — a 45 percent jump from the previous year — and it's not all miltary spending.
This spring, federal immigration authorities (ICE) awarded the company a $30 million contract to develop a new platform for tracking deportations and visa overstays.
– 'Like a drug' –
The company then secured an investment of nearly $800 million from the US military, adding to the $480 million contract signed in May 2024 for its AI platform supporting the Pentagon's 'Project Maven' target identification program.
This marked Palantir's first billion-dollar contract, elevating it alongside government contracting stalwarts like Microsoft and Amazon's AWS.
However, financial results 'are not and will never be the ultimate measure of the value, broadly defined, of our business,' Karp wrote in his letter to shareholders in early May, where he tossed in quotes from Saint Augustine, the Bible and Richard Nixon.
'We have grander and more idiosyncratic aims.'
Palantir was founded in 2003 by Peter Thiel — Silicon Valley's preeminent conservative — Karp, and others with CIA backing.
The company takes its name from the magical seeing stones in Tolkien's 'Lord of the Rings.'
'Young people would say we're like pure drugs — very expensive, highly sought after… that make you stronger and better,' Karp boasted on stage.
Palantir's expanding footprint at the highest levels of government has raised eyebrows.
Several members of the Trump administration's 'DOGE' cost-cutting commission, originally headed by Elon Musk, came from the company.
Recent reports from The New York Times, Wired, and CNN have detailed secret government projects to create, with Palantir's help, a central database combining data from different federal agencies.
– 'Deeply proud' –
This development has created 'a lot of concerns about how that information might be used,' warned Elizabeth Laird from the Center for Democracy & Technology.
Palantir maintains it isn't building 'surveillance technology' or a 'central database on Americans.'
Unlike most traditional Silicon Valley companies that have kept military projects discreet, Palantir now embraces its defense work openly.
Sasha Spivak, director of strategy, said that when she joined Palantir ten years ago, the company kept its sense of purpose behind closed doors.
'Today we're not ashamed, we're not afraid, and we're deeply proud of what we do and our clients,' said Spivak.
Some employee groups are pushing back. In early May, 13 former Palantir employees published a letter accusing tech giants of helping to 'normalize authoritarianism under the cover of a 'revolution' led by oligarchs.'
They argue that by supporting the Trump administration and DOGE, Palantir has betrayed its stated values of ethics, transparency, and defending democracy.
'When I joined the company… there were many smart, motivated people — that's pretty rare,' said one of the letter's signatories, who wishes to remain anonymous, for fear of reprisal.
After months of seeking management explanations about Palantir's collaboration with Israel and ICE, several of these employees resigned.
'They said, 'We're a company that's very responsive to employees,' but people asking about Israel were quickly shut down and told, 'That's what we do — if you don't like it, you can leave,'' the former staffer recalled.
Jeremy David, co-director of the Health division, plays down the controversies.
'My daily life is more about nurses and doctors who often hate us at first and are very grateful at the end,' he told AFP at the conference.
On stage, Joe Bonanno, head of data analysis at Citibank, celebrated how one operation that previously required 'nine days and sometimes 50 people' now 'takes just a few minutes for one person.'
'Like I said, and like Alex said, I came to dominate, crush and annihilate. So if you're JPMorgan, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, sorry,' he concluded with a broad smile.
Some potential clients quietly admit they don't appreciate the war-like rhetoric, but they see no alternative to Palantir's capabilities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Iraqi News
a day ago
- Iraqi News
Iran reveals the fate of enriched uranium after US attack
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed that the fate of 60% enriched uranium is still unresolved, as the stockpile, bombed in the American attacks. The Minister said in an interview with the Financial Times that the assessment of the US bombing damage to Iranian nuclear facilities last June is still ongoing. Araghchi indicated that access to some damaged sites is "complicated", leaving the fate of more than 400 kilograms of uranium in mystery. About the transfer of nuclear material before the attack, Araghchi noted that 'I sent a letter to IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi. I said that we may be taking measures to protect the material, but I did not say we transferred it." He pointed out that uranium may have been partially damaged or destroyed, but the final evaluation has not yet been completed. "Iran has the knowledge and experience and scientists, and we can rebuild, we have lost a lot of centrifuges, but we are still able to enrich," he explained.
Iraq Business
3 days ago
- Iraq Business
Beyond Tariffs: Building a Win-Win Relationship with the US
By Ahmed Tabaqchali for the Atlantic Council. Any opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Iraq Business News. Beyond tariffs: Building a win-win relationship between the US and Iraq Iraq was among the countries that received a letter from US President Donald Trump on July 9th advising its prime minister that Baghdad's trading relationship with Washington was far from reciprocal-and thus its exports to the United States would be subject to a 30 percent tariff starting August 1. This is lower than the initial rate of 39 percent that the Trump administration announced on " Liberation Day " back in April, but higher than the revised 10 percent base rate that applied to all countries when the Trump administration paused "Liberation Day" tariffs for ninety days, allowing room for negotiations that expired in July. Click here to read the full report. To browse our comprehensive library of reports on Iraq, click here.
Memri
3 days ago
- Memri
What Washington Can Learn From The India-UK Free Trade Agreement
India's recent achievement in concluding a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the United Kingdom stands in stark contrast to the tense and protracted negotiations that continue to mark its trade dialogue with the United States.[1] The India-UK FTA, signed in July 2025, is not merely a trade pact, it reflects mutual understanding, strategic alignment, and a shared vision for inclusive growth. It was forged through three years of fractured but ultimately fruitful negotiations between two mature economies that chose pragmatism over posturing. The UK, navigating its post-Brexit economic identity, saw in India not just a market but a partner whose economic ascent could complement its own industrial ambitions. Britain's modern industrial strategy, with its focus on advanced manufacturing, clean energy, and digital technologies, found resonance with India's reform-driven growth trajectory and its aspiration to become a $5 trillion economy by 2027. "US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order for new tariffs on almost 70 countries which is set to go into effect in 7 days. The list includes India which will have to pay a 25% tariff effective 7 days from now. Earlier Trump had announced that India's tariff rate would be effective August 1, but the Executive order signed for 69 countries - with India on the list - says the new tariff rates will be applicable from August 7. He has imposed a 25% tariff on India with an additional unspecified penalty for India's trade with Russia for defense equipment and crude oil…" (Source: Times of India, August 1, 2025) The Indo-U.S. Trade Negotiations Remain Mired In Structural Disagreements The India-UK agreement was not confined to tariff reductions. It offered zero-duty access to 99 percent of Indian exports, streamlined mobility for professionals, and addressed social security contributions through the Double Contribution Convention. It was, in essence, a pact of mutual respect and forward-looking trust. The UK acknowledged India's developmental priorities, its Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSME)-driven economy, and its strategic ambitions. It approached the deal not as a zero-sum game, but as a collaborative opportunity to harness complementary strengths. The result is a framework that promises to double bilateral trade to USD 120 billion by 2030, catalyzing investment, job creation, and industrial competitiveness. In contrast, the Indo-U.S. trade negotiations remain mired in structural disagreements and ideological friction. The disagreements, whether on agricultural subsidies, digital trade, or Special and Differential Treatment at the WTO, are not new. But what exacerbates them is the persistent perception gap. The U.S. views India's insistence on Managed Service Provider (MSP)-based procurement and its digital sovereignty measures as protectionist, while India sees them as essential instruments of social equity and economic resilience. The Equalisation Levy,[2] often dubbed the "Google Tax," a tax introduced in India to tax the digital economy, is emblematic of this clash: a measure born of India's attempt to ensure fair taxation in the digital age, but interpreted by Washington as a targeted affront to American tech giants. Underlying these tensions is a fundamental misreading of India's developmental context. Despite its macroeconomic strength and global ambitions, India remains a country where MSMEs form the backbone of employment, where agriculture is still vulnerable to price shocks, and where per capita consumption lags far behind developed economies. The U.S. administration, in its pursuit of reciprocal concessions, often overlooks these structural realities. It perceives India's rise as a zero-sum game, every gain for India, it fears, comes at the expense of American manufacturing. This mindset not only stifles progress but risks alienating a partner whose strategic alignment with the U.S. is otherwise robust. India's principled stance at the WTO, whether in defending Special and Differential Treatment or opposing plurilateral deals, has often been misunderstood by the U.S. as obstructionism. Yet these positions are rooted in India's historical commitment to the solidarity of developing economies. India's refusal to join the Government Procurement Agreement, for instance, stems from its belief that public procurement is a vital tool for social development. Its opposition to the WTO Moratorium on Customs Duties on Electronic Transmissions is not a rejection of digital trade, but a call for equitable taxation in a rapidly evolving digital landscape. The Divergence In Perception Between The U.S. And India Has Created A Negotiation Environment Fraught With Suspicion And Rigidity The agricultural sector remains a particularly thorny issue. While both countries provide domestic subsidies under WTO-approved provisions, the U.S. argues that India's MSP-based procurement distorts global markets. India, however, sees it as a lifeline for farmers and a bulwark against inflation. The Food Corporation of India's procurement mechanism is not a trade tool, it is a social safety net. The U.S. must recognize that in a country where agriculture employs nearly half the workforce, such mechanisms are not negotiable luxuries but developmental necessities. The digital economy, too, has become a battleground of perceptions. The U.S. views India's Digital Public Infrastructure and initiatives like Atmanirbhar Bharat ("Self-reliant India")[3] as inward-looking, while India sees them as enablers of inclusive growth. Ironically, both countries are global tech hubs with deep investment linkages. Yet instead of building on this synergy, the negotiations have been marred by mistrust and misinterpretation. The root of these differences lies not in the specifics of trade policy but in the broader lens through which each country views the other. India sees itself as a developing economy with legitimate needs for policy space and protective measures. The US, by contrast, sees India's economic rise as a signal that it should relinquish such privileges. This divergence in perception has created a negotiation environment fraught with suspicion and rigidity. The U.S. Has An Opportunity To Reframe Its Engagement With India, Not As A Competitor, But As A Strategic Partner The lesson, then, lies in the UK's approach. Britain did not dilute its interests; it simply chose to engage with India on equal terms, acknowledging its sensitivities and aspirations. The result was a comprehensive, high-quality agreement that promises to unlock significant opportunities for both sides. The US, if it wishes to conclude a meaningful FTA with India, must shed its transactional lens and adopt a more nuanced, empathetic posture. It must recognize that India's insistence on developmental safeguards is not obstructionism, it is a principled stand rooted in lived realities. Trade, at its best, is not a contest of concessions but a choreography of shared growth. The India-UK FTA exemplifies this spirit. The India-U.S. negotiations, if they are to succeed, must rediscover it. The current U.S. administration has an opportunity to reframe its engagement with India, not as a competitor, but as a strategic partner whose growth can amplify shared prosperity. It must move beyond the arithmetic of tariffs and embrace the algebra of trust. Only then can the Indo-U.S. trade deal transcend its impasse and become a beacon of 21st-century economic diplomacy.
