Connect with us

America

Palantir CEO Karp to Silicon Valley: Up to arms!

Published

on

The next target of Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s cuts to the federal state is expected to be the Department of Defense (Pentagon). The US military’s interventionist foreign policy orientation, its global presence, and the unwieldiness of arms companies that claim a large share of Pentagon contracts have become top priorities for “Trumpism” and the Silicon Valley contingent that aligned with Trump.

We will examine the Musk-Trump-Hegseth plans for the Pentagon later, but first, we need to analyze Silicon Valley. This examination is necessary because, at the beginning of the second Trump era, a book that serves essentially as promotional material for Palantir—one of Silicon Valley’s most secretive companies—has been released. Both the author and Palantir’s CEO, Alex Karp, reveal the technology-supported New Right’s vision regarding the USA, the Pentagon, and the world.

“The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West” by Alex Karp and Nicholas W. Zamiska is not yet available, but Karp’s promotional interviews, articles about the book, and our knowledge of technology-loving New Right-libertarian thought (such as the ideas of Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel) enable us to offer commentary.

For instance, Erich Schwartzel of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) conducted his interview with Karp in a “cave-like” cabin reminiscent of the billionaire’s famous Heidegger retreat. Schwartzel describes the scene as follows: “The features of the hut perfectly reflected the interests of a billionaire on a quest to save the West. The windows were decorated with curtains with American flag motifs. Completed and half-completed Rubik’s Cubes were scattered on coffee tables.”

Karp asks, “Would you like to see my guns?” According to Schwartzel, one of Karp’s hobbies is long-range shooting, targeting objects beyond normal firearm parameters. “He took a stance to show the mix of practice and instinct that come together to make the perfect shot,” the reporter explains.

Here we have a profile of the quintessential wealthy New Rightist. After more than two decades running Palantir, a data analytics firm known for its work with the US military and intelligence agencies, Karp owes his billions to the US government. With a market capitalization exceeding $260 billion, what we know about Palantir’s clandestine activities pales in comparison to what remains hidden.

What does Palantir do? In 2003, Karp, who co-founded Palantir with Stanford Law classmate Thiel, essentially adapted a program from Thiel’s other company, PayPal, which identified Russian money laundering by detecting seemingly unrelated cash transactions.

Palantir, named after the “seeing stone” from the Lord of the Rings series, was designed from inception to sift through government and private company data to uncover hidden patterns. The company’s early work traced a series of attacks on an Iraqi village and identified a cyber network infiltration campaign against the Dalai Lama. In Afghanistan, Palantir software enabled the US military to discover patterns in roadside bomb placements, facilitating their discovery and dismantling.

When asked about his occupation, Karp typically responds that “it’s classified information.” “For most people we were not very sexy, and for a small number of people we were uncontrollably sexy,” he told the WSJ.

The company’s clients include the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, as well as “civilian” corporations such as Amazon, Airbus, and Merck.

The WSJ reporter also notes that in recent years, many “philosopher-kings” have emerged from Silicon Valley—Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Thiel, among others. Within this group, Karp is known for avoiding the spotlight.

This discretion may be part of his mystique. Karp oversees Palantir’s lucrative contracts while urging Silicon Valley to help “the West win the clash of civilizations.”

Karp’s book criticizes the tech industry for abandoning its history of “helping America and its allies.” Echoing Musk, Hegseth, and Trump, he argues that the industry’s last two decades represent “a colossal waste.”

The WSJ reporter quotes from the book: While he and his Palantir colleagues work to save American soldiers’ lives in Kandahar by detecting roadside bombs, his peers in Northern California enable college-educated smartphone users to obtain paragliding coupons and play FarmVille after decades of peace. Karp rebels against this disparity.

John Ganz, who reviewed the book for Bloomberg, highlights a similar theme. “At some point, Silicon Valley lost its way,” the book summarizes. What began as a “bold partnership between the US government and the private sector to develop innovative new technologies” has degenerated over five decades to cater primarily to consumers and markets. The Valley has built social media platforms, e-commerce sites, and food delivery applications, but either from principle or self-interest, its founders failed to help the US Department of Defense develop effective new weapons.

If Karp’s book could be distilled into one sentence, Schwartzel suggests it might be: “The wonder kids of Silicon Valley—their fortunes, their business empires, and, more fundamentally, their entire sense of self—existed, in many cases, because of the nation that made their rise possible.”

Karp believes the industry must now repay that debt by uniting with the American state. The authors declare that it is “time for the prodigal son to come home.” “Softened” by their dedication to consumerism, peacetime, and comfortable living, Silicon Valley workers must rededicate themselves to the “collective project” of American nationalism and defense of the “civilizational project” called the West.

The Bloomberg author quotes directly from the book, revealing the mindset of New Right techno-libertarian billionaires. According to them, since in “authoritarian” regimes the wealthy’s fate intertwines with the state and society, they behave “as owners who have a say in the future of their country” and demonstrate greater sensitivity to public needs and demands. The authors explain this through a typical property owner’s perspective: “All of us in business and politics are always bargaining against the threat of rebellion.”

But what does defending Western values entail? Silicon Valley’s role is defined as: “A society of ownership, a founder’s culture that comes from technology but has the potential to reshape government, and not to entrust leadership to anyone who has not had a hand in its own success.”

“Silicon Valley’s fundamental insight is not just to hire the best and brightest, but to treat them as such, to give them the flexibility, freedom and space to create,” the book states. Through libertarian thinking, these exceptional engineers would dominate the state—at least that’s the intention.

And there’s more. According to Karp and Zamiska, this special minority will apply a “ruthlessly pragmatic” engineering mentality to national issues. And who decides what constitutes national issues? Naturally, Silicon Valley’s uniquely aware engineers.

According to Bloomberg, the “republic” envisioned by the authors appears to have only two components: elites and masses, bound together by a “collective identity” supported by “civic rituals” and a “common mythology.”

Contemporary concerns for public opinion and democratic will are dismissed as “symbolism,” “conformism,” “performance,” and “social calculation.” Instead, the technological republic’s leadership relies on the “diligent pursuit of advances and results.”

These arguments align with Peter Thiel’s views on democracy. “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible,” Thiel wrote in his 2009 article “The Education of a Libertarian.” To Thiel, elections as a democratic procedure made no sense. Thiel and his associates combined this dissatisfaction with hostility toward the “regulatory state” and challenged “all forms of politics” with an almost Schmittian revulsion.

Consequently, the book contains numerous contradictions. It criticizes unaccountable “technocrats” yet proposes governance by Silicon Valley engineers shielded from public or political interference. It condemns federal bureaucracy excesses while advocating an equally unaccountable form of government. Similar to 20th-century fascism, it advocates for artistic-aesthetic freedom while subordinating it to a single goal: the nation-state’s military dominance. In the Bloomberg author’s words, it proposes that “politicians and civil servants should be replaced by STEM soldier-poets.”

The Bloomberg reviewer likens this to Weimar period “reactionary modernism,” citing similarities: nostalgia for lost national greatness, disdain for markets and consumerism in favor of state management and industrial production, romantic obsession with advanced weaponry, and the virtual deification of engineers as the spiritual vanguard of this dark utopia.

The introductions to Karp’s book by figures like former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, General James N. Mattis, and JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon suggest these ideas extend beyond fringe New Right extremists.

The authors advocate for collaboration between state and corporate power merged with “engineering genius,” with the Manhattan Project that produced the atomic bomb as their ideal model. Karp believes the US should undertake a similar initiative for artificial intelligence, requiring massive capital investment.

The Palantir CEO approves of Trump and Musk’s attacks on the federal government, claiming to have “predicted” them years ago.

“Predicted” is an understatement. Palantir is expected to strengthen its position under the Trump administration and has already begun doing so. The company’s stock price has increased by over 180% since the day before Trump’s election. Growth in Palantir’s artificial intelligence business and expectations that the new administration will favor companies like Palantir over traditional defense contractors like Lockheed Martin propel this momentum.

Karp perhaps summarizes the difference between the New Right-libertarian Silicon Valley cohort and its predecessors: In a recent investor call, he stated that Palantir is “making America more lethal” by analyzing vast data sets for US armed forces and allies, helping them predict enemy movements, determine coordinates, “and sometimes kill them.” Unlike the old warlords who ruled from behind the scenes, Karp proudly aspires to direct state involvement. At least he’s forthright.

Indeed, several former Palantir employees have recently taken positions in the Trump administration, deepening the company’s government connections. In turn, Palantir has hired figures like former Wisconsin Congressman Mike Gallagher, who chaired the House Chinese Communist Party Committee from 2023 to 2024 and advocated for stronger responses to

Chinese influence in America. Gallagher now leads Palantir’s defense business. Karp told potential investors that investing in Palantir meant supporting a company whose mission was to “support Western liberal democracy and its strategic allies.” He guaranteed that the “know-how” of Silicon Valley’s relatively small but technologically sophisticated companies would be made available to Western states, especially the United States.

In 2022, as Russian forces invaded Ukraine, he warned against nuclear escalation while acknowledging that “bad times are good for Palantir.”

According to the WSJ, Karp had advocated many of the book’s central themes for years, but several developments prompted him to compile them: Operation Aqsa Flood, led by Hamas, motivated him to speak more boldly. Hours after news of the attack spread, Karp deployed Palantir staff to Israel to “help coordinate the country’s response.”

Arguing that we’re entering a new global era, Karp contends that the artificial intelligence systems driving investor interest in Palantir will elevate talent requirements and compel everyone to “do something unique and creative.”

This brings us to the Pentagon plans of the Trump-Musk-Hegseth trio, which we will address in subsequent installments of this series.

America

US national debt hits record $40 trillion as borrowing accelerates

Published

on

The US national debt has reached a record $40 trillion as borrowing expanded at a historic pace.

The development has heightened investor concern over the state of US public finances, despite Donald Trump’s pledge to bring spending under control.

Gross federal debt crossed the threshold on Tuesday, according to Treasury Department data published on Wednesday.

Calculations by the Financial Times show that debt climbed by $3 trillion over the past year, registering the fastest rate of increase in history outside the pandemic period.

Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget think tank, said:

“This is like a giant, flashing ‘check engine’ light. It doesn’t mean your engine will melt down tomorrow, but it is a clear sign that things have gotten quite out of hand. And it’s not just the size of the number; it’s the speed at which we’ve reached it.”

The US national debt has surged over the past two decades, climbing from below $6 trillion at the start of the century (about $12 trillion in 2026 dollar terms) as massive public spending during the financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic compounded enormous budget deficits.

In the past 10 years alone, the total debt load has doubled. Debt held by the public—a key gauge tracked by markets that excludes intra-governmental holdings—now exceeds $32 trillion, roughly equal to the size of the US economy.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office expects debt held by the public to surpass the post-Second World War record of 106% of GDP by the end of the decade and to reach 120% by 2036.

As borrowing increased, investors began demanding a higher premium to hold US bonds.

This has driven interest rates higher, leaving debt servicing costs larger than national defence spending.

The situation has created unease in Washington. On Wednesday, prior to the release of the debt data, the Treasury Department announced it would double its buybacks of long-term government debt in a bid to halt a recent sell-off.

Last week, the US paid its highest borrowing costs since 2001 to sell 30-year bonds.

Wednesday’s 10-year Treasury auction produced the highest yields since 2007 as investors fretted over the scale of the debt.

Ed Yardeni, president of Yardeni Research, said: “That is an awful lot of money being borrowed. It is going to feed on itself with interest expenses. If interest rates rise because of concerns about the high debt load, that will lead to even more interest expense. It’s a vicious cycle.”

Trump returned to office in 2025 promising to rein in “wasteful” government spending.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pledged to reduce the budget deficit to 3% of GDP by the end of Trump’s term.

However, measures to trim spending in some areas were offset by broad tax cuts in the president’s signature 2025 fiscal legislation, the “One Big Beautiful Bill”, which will add more than $4 trillion to the debt by 2034.

Trump also requested an increase of more than 50% in annual defence spending, seeking $1.5 trillion in the largest budget request in US history.

The deficit fell to 5.9% of GDP in 2025 from 6.3% the previous year. The CBO expects the deficit to decline to 5.8% this year. The US national debt comprises years of accumulated deficits compounded by interest charges.

Analysts noted that both US political parties missed opportunities during periods of economic expansion to take significant steps toward curbing spending.

Calculations by the Congressional Joint Economic Committee indicate that over the past year, total national debt grew by roughly $7.9 billion a day, or approximately $91,000 per second.

Budget specialists said they hoped crossing the $40 trillion threshold would spur politicians from both parties to take meaningful steps to bring borrowing back under control.

Michael Peterson, head of the Peterson Foundation, a think tank dedicated to returning debt to a sustainable trajectory, said:

“My hope is that this serves as a national alarm and wake-up call to address our fiscal future. If we keep borrowing this much, we are going to face a day of reckoning in financial markets… People will wake up one day and decide: ‘You know what? I’m more worried about the United States now. I’m going to demand higher interest rates, or I’m going to put my money somewhere else.'”

Continue Reading

America

Independent US oil firms set to sign output deals in Venezuela

Published

on

Several independent US oil producers are expected to sign production contracts with Venezuela’s state-owned oil company in the coming days.

According to sources who spoke to Politico on condition of anonymity because details of the event have not yet been made public, a signing ceremony involving several small US producers and Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) was scheduled to take place in Houston on Tuesday (18 August) evening.

One source said Venezuela’s oil minister and the head of PDVSA’s exploration division were scheduled to attend the ceremony. Another source added that the event could be postponed until Wednesday morning.

The White House, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment, was not expected to be officially involved in Tuesday’s ceremony.

However, the development follows a visit by senior officials to Caracas in late April, where they signed memorandums of understanding that established the framework for formal production agreements in the country, which holds some of the world’s largest oil reserves.

Despite the tailwind provided by high crude prices, negotiations had stalled over key details such as dispute resolution, while officials in Caracas contended with two devastating earthquakes in June that claimed thousands of lives.

Venezuela’s interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, announced new regulations last month that offer more favourable fiscal terms to international oil companies.

According to an industry source close to the negotiations, the signing of the contracts comes after the Trump administration renewed pressure on Rodríguez to ensure PDVSA concludes agreements with American firms.

The source said these efforts included outreach by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to discuss how increased oil revenues could assist the country following the devastating earthquake earlier this summer.

The source added:

“Delcy reached a renewed awareness that increased oil production is the way to rebuild after the earthquakes and to achieve what her government wants to do for the people suffering from the earthquakes.”

David Goldwyn, president of the international energy consultancy Goldwyn Global Strategies, said investments from independent oil producers and boosting output from existing fields would serve as the “primary source of new oil growth for the next few years” for Venezuela.

“While the oil majors are trying to buy time to see how the political situation clarifies and whether they can cherry-pick the best assets, independent companies can de-risk their projects in the short term,” Goldwyn said.

However, Goldwyn noted that these investments would add no more than 300,000 barrels per day to the country’s oil production over the next year, falling far short of the multi-million-barrel increase that officials in Caracas and Washington wish to see.

“Until the framework improves, electricity is restored, and the political picture becomes clear, all we will see is incremental production growth,” the strategist said.

Continue Reading

America

US-Brazil rift widens over proposed sanctions and trade tariffs

Published

on

Diplomatic tensions between the two countries remain at a peak as the US government considers new sanctions targeting a judge on Brazil’s Supreme Court.

According to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to the Financial Times (FT), the Trump administration is evaluating new measures against Justice Alexandre de Moraes, whom it sanctioned last year on human rights grounds before subsequently rescinding that decision.

Washington’s renewed focus on the magistrate threatens to widen the rift between Brazil and the US across trade and political spheres, casting a shadow over upcoming elections in Latin America’s largest nation.

A little over a year ago, De Moraes was subjected to sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent accused him at the time of engaging in a “repressive censorship campaign, arbitrary detentions that violate human rights, and politicized prosecutions,” including measures directed at former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.

Bolsonaro, an ally of Donald Trump, was sentenced last year to 27 years in prison for plotting a coup.

However, sanctions targeting the judge, his wife, and a company owned by his family were lifted in December following a meeting and phone conversations between Trump and his Brazilian counterpart, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

According to a source familiar with the matter who requested anonymity, US interest in De Moraes was revived partly due to a case that ignited a debate over press freedom in Brazil.

The judge authorized police raids against a journalist and two sources as part of an investigation into media coverage concerning a Supreme Court justice and his family.

De Moraes defended the action, arguing that the information in question had been illegally obtained and disclosed, thereby endangering the safety of the justice’s family.

The judge gained global prominence several years ago following a public conflict with Elon Musk, which briefly led to the billionaire’s X platform being blocked in Brazil.

Supporters say he “helped protect Brazilian democracy against a wave of misinformation.”

However, critics, including the Trump administration, view him as violating free speech rights.

“He went after the president’s supporters. Not just Elon Musk, but MAGA supporters in Brazil as well. Even if we want to build good relations with Brazil, it is clear that this man is an adversary,” said a person familiar with the US government’s thinking.

Another person stated that the reimposition of Magnitsky sanctions is “under evaluation,” noting that such sanctions entail the freezing of US-based assets and a prohibition on American companies and individuals conducting business with targeted parties.

While it remains unclear whether or when a decision will be reached, any such move would intensify an escalating retaliatory spiral between the two most populous countries in the Americas.

Tensions initially erupted more than a year ago when Trump imposed a 50% tariff on Brazil while demanding that prosecution proceedings against Bolsonaro be dropped.

That tariff was subsequently invalidated by the US Supreme Court.

A brief period of de-escalation since then has drawn to a close, with the US applying a 25% import tariff on numerous Brazilian products in July.

Last month, Brazil denied entry to two Trump envoys over concerns regarding potential interference in its upcoming October elections. Washington rejects those allegations.

Lula, who is seeking re-election for a fourth presidential term, suggested that the US might act to support his main opponent, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, the jailed former leader’s son.

The 80-year-old president has also engaged in a sharp public exchange of words with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

On Sunday, thousands of supporters gathered to welcome Lula at a stadium in Sao Bernardo do Campo, an industrial suburb of Sao Paulo, for the official launch of his election campaign.

Lula originally achieved prominence in the area during the late 1970s as a union leader heading metalworkers’ strikes.

Speaking at the venue, Lula said, “I thank the working men and women of this country who believed that someone like themselves could achieve more than someone different from them. As long as I am alive, I will not stop fighting, and I will not allow the right [to prevail].”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey