Palantir CEO Alex Karp says he would not vote for ‘pro-Russian’ AfD in Germany

The co-founder and chief executive of Palantir, Alex Karp, has stated that while he understands the rise of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, he would not vote for the group if he lived in Germany, describing it as “pro-Russian”.

Speaking as a guest on a programme hosted by Mathias Döpfner, the chairman of the German media conglomerate Axel Springer, Karp addressed a wide range of subjects, including the war in Ukraine, artificial intelligence (AI), Palantir’s surveillance technologies, and the state of German politics.

Döpfner noted that when they first met at a party in 2003, Karp was viewed as an “interesting left-wing intellectual”. Asked how he had since transitioned into what some describe as a “dark figure of the radical right”, Karp rejected the characterisation, asserting that the image is inaccurate and that he receives widespread support when meeting ordinary people.

“Every investor in Silicon Valley would cut off their right arm to have a fanbase like ours,” Karp said. “Probably their left arm too.”

Asserting that Palantir’s products—specifically its data analytics and investigative software, Gotham—have made history by preventing terrorist attacks and playing a central role in the defence of Ukraine, Karp argued that a cultural divide exists between Europe and the United States.

“In the US, when it comes to a new technology, the first question asked is not whether we find the person behind it likeable,” Karp said. “Instead, the key question is: does the technology work? Is it better? Does it make companies more successful? In Europe, however, these questions are often not asked at all. Or at least, not in the right way. Because if these questions were taken seriously, one might reach the uncomfortable conclusion that a significant portion of technological infrastructure will, for the foreseeable future, have to come from the United States.”

While acknowledging that Palantir face rejection from certain sections of the political and media elite, Karp maintained that the vast majority of Germans simply want to know whether the company’s products are effective.

Karp claimed that his firm possesses the world’s only industrial-scale “application layer” of its size, which he said prevents data from being harvested or misused by large language model providers.

According to Karp, the supreme irony is that “in Europe, in the name of data protection, technically uninformed bureaucrats are fighting the very company that makes this data protection possible in the first place.”

Arguing that Europe suffers from a fundamental deficit in technological competence, the Palantir founder added: “Economically, Palantir does not need the European market. But Europe is very important to me. That is why this debate interests me.”

Comparing concepts of freedom, Karp observed that in the US, rights are primarily understood as protections against the state, whereas Europe places greater emphasis on economic rights.

Identifying himself as a progressive, Karp defined his philosophy as defending the rights of individuals “even if I do not personally like them”.

He described the frequent depiction of Palantir’s other co-founder, Peter Thiel, as “anti-democratic” or a “religious fanatic” as a scandal.

“I have known him since our time together at Stanford,” Karp said of Thiel. “He was a political outlier on the right back then, but he was certainly no enemy of democracy. The narratives about Peter rarely withstand objective scrutiny. The same applies to Palantir. Therefore, I find the question of why people still want to believe these stories far more interesting. My impression is that a very American form of political polarisation is blending with German traditions. What emerges is no longer a German debate, but an imported American culture war logic. Yet historically, Germany would ask a completely different question: not ‘do we like this person?’ but ‘can we afford the luxury of learning nothing from him?'”

Germany, Karp argued, should currently possess the world’s second-most powerful technology sector.

“Yet Germany is now barely represented in this league,” Karp said. “Germany’s largest listed company is Siemens. Palantir’s value today is significantly higher than Siemens’. In fact, I believe Palantir is still undervalued at present.”

Turning to German domestic politics, Karp described the rise of radical parties in the country as entirely predictable.

The Palantir executive argued that those who accepted large-scale migration into Germany “without involving the public and openly discussing the consequences” should not be surprised by the political outcome. He pointed to an “incredibly difficult and painful inability to speak openly about obvious facts” in Europe, and particularly in Germany.

At this point, Döpfner intervened, suggesting that Karp was avoiding the question and pressed further: “What do you think of the AfD? Palantir is assisting Ukraine in its war against Russia. In contrast, the AfD has repeatedly demanded that Ukraine be forced to negotiate with Russia. Leading representatives of the party reverse the roles of perpetrator and victim. How do you assess this? I ask this question so directly because some imply that Peter Thiel or you share a certain affinity with the AfD.”

Karp responded by emphasizing that whilst he understands why the AfD has achieved success, this does not mean he supports them.

“If I were a German citizen, I would not vote for them,” Karp said. “I have no interest in supporting a party that shows understanding for Putin or harbours sympathy for the Chinese Communist Party.”

He suggested that many people vote for the AfD as a protest, believing that established parties no longer wish to take issues like migration seriously or resolve them, which drives voters toward the AfD.

Karp noted that people who genuinely care about Germany have pointed to this development for years and have often been publicly discredited. Addressing Döpfner directly, Karp said: “You are a good example of this. My impression is that on many social issues, you are slightly to the left of the centre-left. Fundamentally, you would probably be classified by many Americans as a classical liberal or even mildly left-wing. Yet you are regularly attacked in Germany. All this while you resolutely oppose the AfD. You have no sympathy for Putin; on the contrary, we both know that Russia poses a direct threat to the West.”

Karp added that both he and Döpfner defend democracy, the West, and support for Ukraine. When Döpfner stated that he also views the success of the AfD as the result of a weak political centre, whilst rejecting the party as an alternative due to its pro-Russian, anti-American, and anti-capitalist stances, Karp responded: “I largely agree with that.”

Nonetheless, Karp maintained that many voters support the party not because of its broader platform, but because they feel ignored by the political establishment.

Karp acknowledged that AI represents both an opportunity and a threat. However, he argued that European discussions on AI often focus on issues that have already been settled in the US, describing it as though Europe is discussing a “light” version of the technology.

“Germany must reshape its industry with the help of AI,” Karp said. “The automotive industry, the chemical sector—practically all key industries are on the verge of a profound transformation. At the same time, the workforce is shrinking, energy costs remain high, and international competition is intensifying. There is only one serious answer to this: AI.”

Karp asserted that nothing will change unless the German Chancellor publicly declares that the country is in a crisis. He argued that Germany requires individuals who have successfully built global enterprises in the past, naming figures such as Tobias Lütke, Philipp Schindler, and Peter Thiel.

“This task cannot be solved by people who have never established a global technology company,” Karp claimed.

“Germany must do everything it can to win back such entrepreneurs and provide them with the necessary freedom,” he continued. “Technology companies do not emerge from a four-day working week. They are built by people who work for years with an almost fanatical dedication. Around the clock. And of course, this includes the ability to replace teams when things do not work out. This does not mean I fundamentally question workers’ rights. On the contrary. But a top engineer working in AI requires a different employment law framework than many traditional industrial professions. I would also establish a special economic zone—a region where the same competitive conditions apply as those in the United States, Israel, or China. Because this is where the global technology competition is taking place today.”

While admitting that AI carries risks, Karp argued that the primary danger does not lie in the existence of AI itself, but in the prospect of democratic societies failing to utilise its potential out of fear.

The chief executive stated he is certain that AI will raise the standard of living for most people, though he noted that those who develop and control these technologies could become 10, 20, or 100 times wealthier than they are today.

Recalling that past industrial revolutions enriched entrepreneurs, Karp added: “But inequalities remained within a framework that society could accept. Today, however, the wealth gap is reaching dimensions that many people cannot even imagine.”

Karp observed that societies have been divided for much longer than people care to admit. “When you add an unprecedented concentration of wealth to this social distance, a politically explosive environment is created,” he warned. “Many people fear becoming redundant.”

When asked by Döpfner about the geopolitical tech race between the West and an alliance of authoritarian states including China, Russia, and Iran, Karp expressed confidence that the moral standards of the Western world would serve as a competitive advantage.

He attributed part of Ukraine’s military success to Palantir’s ability to protect data and strengthen digital sovereignty.

“Technology does not develop in a vacuum,” Karp said. “Those who gain experience under real operational conditions gain an advantage. This is why I view China’s supposed advantages partly as disadvantages. It is often claimed that China has much larger volumes of data. What matters is not the quantity of data, but what can be done with it.”

Karp said it remains impossible to predict whether the US or China will lead technologically in a decade. However, he warned that if the West restricts technologies critical to its competitiveness, Russia, China, and Iran will immediately exploit the gap.

While Karp said he did not believe every campaign against Palantir was orchestrated by adversaries, he added: “But of course, authoritarian states attempt to influence these very debates.”

Acknowledging China’s significant capabilities, Karp argued that the primary challenge lies not in Beijing, but in whether Europe and America can maintain their political capacity to act.

“We must fight with all our strength to avoid waking up in societies where freedom and the rule of law are nothing more than memories,” Karp said, calling for a society where the best can succeed.

He described his vision of a society where as many people as possible have equal opportunities, but where outcomes depend on “talent, discipline, effort—and yes, to some extent, luck.”

Concluding his remarks, Karp said: “A society where the rule of law applies to everyone. A society where freedom of expression does not depend on whether an opinion pleases us. A society where data protection applies even to those we personally dislike. A society where state power remains limited, where people can be creative and are rewarded for their achievements. At the same time, a sufficient number of people must share in this prosperity so that social cohesion can be preserved. But what worries me is this: today, many people who consider themselves progressive are fighting against this very order. They define people by their origins or identities. They no longer treat freedom as a universal principle, but as a privilege. Palantir and I are working precisely against this—by giving people greater sovereignty over their data, and by supporting democracies like Ukraine, Israel, or the United States to defend themselves against authoritarian adversaries.”