Alex Karp, Palantir, and the Politics of Surveillance
Alex Karp’s story is strange and layered: a PhD in Philosophy from Goethe University Frankfurt, biracial, severely dyslexic, and he never learned to drive. He moved from being a lifelong Democrat to a figure increasingly aligned with the right, and he does not embrace Curtis Yarvin’s Dark Enlightenment philosophy. Today he runs the company that dominates commercial surveillance software.
In a letter to shareholders announcing $476 million of profit in the third quarter, Karp quoted the Irish poet W.B. Yeats: “Things fall apart; the center cannot hold.” In that same letter he warned against “proclaim[ing] the equality of all cultures and cultural values.”
Michael Steinberger’s book The Philosopher in the Valley: Alex Karp, Palantir, and the Rise of the Surveillance State traces Karp’s political path and frames it as more than opportunism. Steinberger argues Karp’s turn toward MAGA-style politics mixes intellectual rigor with a growing comfort toward the priorities of a Trump administration. That combination makes Karp and Palantir a crucial case for understanding Big Tech’s rightward shift.
Karp began his adult life as a self-styled progressive who worried about economic inequality and supported ideas like universal health care. Over recent years he has grown skeptical of immigration, enthusiastic about unchecked AI development, and openly disdainful of left-leaning protesters. He still retains heterodox positions from earlier days, such as opposition to affirmative action and a strong view of the Second Amendment.
Part of the explanation for his unusual politics is training and temperament. He studied in Germany to understand how a modern society could descend into barbarism, and his dissertation examined the rhetoric of fascism. That background lets him talk about political dangers with a fluency many tech executives lack.
Palantir’s technology compiles and synthesizes vast amounts of data, and that capability has made the company controversial. Under Trump it became a target because of contracts with agencies like ICE and work on programs critics say could expand surveillance. The debate centers on whether Palantir enables misuse or simply provides tools to users who decide how to apply them.
Steinberger notes internal dissent at Palantir over ICE work and asks a pointed question: “Karp is not going to say publicly where the red lines are.” That uncertainty fuels concern about how far the company will go if political winds shift further in one direction. For some employees and observers, the worry is less about the software itself than about who controls the data and their motives.
Karp has repeatedly defended the company by stressing that Palantir does not collect, store, or sell data and that its product helps organizations use their own data better. He points out that end users choose whether to employ built-in safety controls, and those human choices create risk. That defense lands differently depending on whether you trust the current administration to resist politicized misuse.
Palantir’s rise involved battles with the military and court fights, including a 2016 suit that opened doors to defense work. Since then, Palantir has become a major contractor and has pursued deeper integration across agencies. Projects tied to DOGE included work on products for the IRS and a database intended to surveil and track immigrants.
Libertarians and civil libertarians raise a separate objection: merging federal data silos could create an effective master database of Americans. Supporters say the goal is efficiency and better missions, but critics warn that consolidated access increases the risk of abuse. A number of former officials have argued that segregation of data existed for a reason: to make it harder for a single bad actor to misuse comprehensive information.
The political stakes are sharpened by the personality and agenda of leaders in power. Karp pushes back by accusing critics of “TDS” in shorthand, but others point to explicit calls from some figures to use governmental power against perceived enemies. If an administration seeks to weaponize data, the tools Palantir builds could be repurposed toward that end.
That is where the debate rests: between a defense of a powerful analytics platform as neutral infrastructure and a Republican-tinged worry that the platform will enable political targeting under a permissive administration. Palantir’s choices, and Karp’s public posture, ensure this argument will not fade anytime soon.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.