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 Senate approves measure limiting Trump’s authority to use force against Iran

Published

on

The US Senate has approved a resolution aimed at limiting President Donald Trump’s authority to undertake military action against Iran.

According to CNN, the measure requires Trump either to halt military operations directed at Iran or obtain specific authorization from Congress before using force.

The resolution passed by a vote of 50 to 48. Its approval was made possible by Republican senators Rand Paul, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Bill Cassidy, who joined Democrats in supporting the measure. Democratic Senator John Fetterman voted against it.

The outcome was also influenced by the absence of several Republican senators.

Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell was unable to vote after being hospitalized with an undiagnosed illness, while Pennsylvania Senator Dave McCormick did not participate in the vote. Their absence made it easier for Democrats to secure the necessary majority.

Commenting on the result, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said the American public was paying the price for what he described as Trump’s historic mistake on Iran.

“This will go down as one of the most failed foreign policy initiatives in the history of the United States,” Schumer said.

By supporting the resolution, Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana also backed a measure previously approved by the House of Representatives that called on Trump to halt military attacks against Iran.

Some Democratic senators, including Tim Kaine, argued that passage of the war powers resolution remained necessary even though the United States and Iran had signed a memorandum of understanding and launched negotiations on a final peace agreement.

The Senate had previously supported the measure by a vote of 50 to 47 on May 20, but it was rejected by a vote of 48 to 47 during a subsequent vote on June 17.

Earlier efforts to advance the legislation in the Republican-controlled Senate had failed.

Under the US Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war.

However, many US presidents have argued that this restriction does not apply to short-term military operations or situations in which the country faces an immediate threat.

Although the Senate’s action is largely symbolic and does not carry full legal force, it reflects opposition among some lawmakers in both the House and Senate to military action against Iran and to Trump’s agreement that brought the conflict to an end.

The vote took place as the Pentagon was seeking an additional $80 billion from Congress to help cover the costs of operations involving Iran and replenish weapons and ammunition stockpiles.

Continue Reading

America

Venezuela prepares record $240 billion sovereign debt restructuring

Published

on

Venezuela is preparing to undertake what would become the largest sovereign debt restructuring in history, unveiling a debt burden of $240 billion that is significantly larger than previously estimated.

According to sources familiar with the country’s plans who spoke to the Financial Times (FT), Venezuela will disclose detailed information about its financial position to creditors in the coming weeks, revealing total liabilities well above market estimates of between $150 billion and $200 billion.

Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s interim leader, is aiming to reach an agreement with creditors by the end of the year that would pave the way for the country’s return to international capital markets after nearly a decade of exclusion under Nicolás Maduro, who was abducted in a US military operation in January.

According to sources familiar with the plans, US investment bank Centerview Partners, appointed by Caracas as its financial adviser, has helped prepare a strategy to reduce Venezuela’s debt burden to a “sustainable” level.

The plan is expected to be published in early July.

The same sources said a long-awaited macroeconomic framework will also be released later this month.

Under that framework, the size of Venezuela’s battered economy is expected to be estimated at approximately $100 billion, down sharply from $370 billion in 2012, the final year of Hugo Chávez’s presidency. The country’s debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to exceed 200%.

Unusually for a major sovereign debt restructuring, the debt sustainability analysis was not prepared by the International Monetary Fund.

Bondholders are likely to interpret the assessment of the country’s finances as a signal that Venezuela will seek a substantial reduction in the value of its debt.

However, some members of Venezuela’s opposition fear that an accelerated restructuring process conducted outside the IMF’s framework could weaken the country’s negotiating position with bondholders.

Venezuelan bonds traded at 33 cents on the dollar before Maduro’s abduction and are now changing hands at around 55 cents. Those prices, however, do not include years of unpaid interest.

An investor who recently exited Venezuelan bond positions said:

“This is one of the first major restructurings where the debt sustainability analysis has not been prepared by the IMF. There should be an IMF-coordinated discussion among creditors … and a properly audited debt perimeter.”

Sources familiar with Venezuela’s debt plans said technical discussions have been taking place with the IMF regarding the country’s economic data and that the restructuring proposal will resemble an IMF-style framework.

Venezuela resumed relations with the IMF in April after a seven-year hiatus.

An IMF spokesperson said the institution is not involved in the debt restructuring process announced by Venezuela.

“Fund staff remain in regular contact with the Venezuelan authorities, including on the macroeconomic outlook, as we do with all member countries. The Fund stands ready to assist the authorities as needed.”

The restructuring would surpass Greece’s $200 billion default during the eurozone crisis in 2012, making it the largest sovereign debt restructuring on record.

Because of the diversity of Venezuela’s liabilities and the length of time since Caracas stopped servicing many of its obligations, the process had already been viewed as more complex than any previous restructuring.

Bonds issued by the government and state oil company PDVSA represent the single largest and most verifiable component of Venezuela’s debt, totaling about $60 billion, plus roughly $40 billion in post-default interest. That amount is increasing by approximately $5 billion per year.

Investors had previously estimated that Venezuela owes between $30 billion and $50 billion to oil companies and commercial creditors through unpaid bills, as well as more than $20 billion in legal compensation awarded to companies whose assets were seized under the Chávez administration.

Venezuela is also estimated to owe between $10 billion and $20 billion to China under debt arrangements previously serviced through oil exports but now believed to be in default, around $6 billion to Russia, and approximately $4 billion to development banks.

Moving faster than many creditors had expected, Rodríguez’s government launched the restructuring process last month by appointing French banker Matthieu Pigasse from Centerview. During his time at Lazard, Pigasse advised Greece, Argentina and other countries on major sovereign debt deals.

Pigasse, who joined Centerview in 2020 and was later joined by his former Lazard colleague Hamouda Chekir, has longstanding ties to Caracas through advisory work on the sale of Citgo, PDVSA’s former US subsidiary, and has maintained a close relationship with Rodríguez for more than a decade.

According to a letter obtained by the Financial Times, Lazard recently approached the Venezuelan government seeking to replace Centerview, offering to work for a fee of approximately $25 million, which it described as delivering “exceptional value.”

Lazard had sought a similar fee for its role in Greece’s 2012 debt restructuring.

Venezuela immediately rejected the proposal.

In a statement, the government said:

“As in our previous adviser selection processes, we applied a consistent set of criteria focused on team experience, expertise, quality analysis and an understanding of our circumstances … Based on the same assessments, we selected Centerview Partners as our financial adviser.”

Other sources familiar with the discussions said Centerview’s fee has not yet been finalized. Lazard declined to comment.

Bondholders are closely focused on how quickly the country can revive oil production and how crude sales restarted under US mediation following Maduro’s departure are progressing.

The Venezuelan central bank, which has resumed publishing some economic indicators on a regular basis, reported this week in its balance of payments data that oil exports totaled $5.5 billion during the first three months of the year.

Although that figure was up from $4.4 billion during the final months of the Maduro administration, it remains well below levels recorded before the default and the imposition of US sanctions.

Jeff Grills, a portfolio manager at Aegon Asset Management, said: “The timeline makes the situation even more complicated … Could this be resolved by 2026? There’s a small chance. But I think this will stretch into 2027.”

Continue Reading

America

Israel looks to Latin America as Isaac Accords seek to expand regional partnerships

Published

on

As ties between Israel and Latin American countries continue to deepen, the newly launched Isaac Accords are emerging as a framework for expanding cooperation across the region.

The initiative formed the backdrop to a panel discussion on opportunities for Israel in the Western Hemisphere at the 2026 JNS International Policy Summit in Jerusalem on Monday.

The panel, titled “The Coming Isaac Accords: Israel and Latin America,” brought together diplomats and regional experts to discuss developments that could encourage participation in the Isaac Accords, the strategic framework announced in April by Argentine President Javier Milei and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during Milei’s visit to Israel.

Moderated by JNS correspondent Etgar Lefkovits, the discussion featured Panama’s Ambassador to Israel Ezra Cohen, former US Ambassador to Costa Rica Fitzgerald Haney, and Leah Soibel, founder and CEO of Fuente Latina, which provides Middle East news coverage to Spanish-language media outlets.

Soibel said:

“What we need to understand is that the Isaac Accords have an impact that extends far beyond diplomacy. Twenty percent of the US population is Hispanic. By 2050, that figure is expected to reach 30% of the population. This is the demographic group with the lowest levels of antisemitic sentiment.”

The panel also celebrated the victory of pro-US and pro-Israel candidate Abelardo De La Espriella, who defeated his left-wing rival in Colombia’s presidential election on Sunday.

De La Espriella had made the restoration of relations with Israel and the relocation of his country’s embassy to Jerusalem central elements of his campaign platform.

Cohen said that when he looks at a map of Latin America, only four countries are currently governed by left-wing, anti-Israel administrations.

Referring to an earlier panel discussing what participants described as a bleak future for Jews in Europe, Cohen remarked: “When one window closes, another opens. Come to Latin America.”

Haney argued that “Israel’s friends keep winning” and predicted that “we are going to see a lot more positive developments coming out of Latin America.”

He said a colleague in Colombia had sent him a text message promising: “On August 7 at 5 p.m., we will restore relations with Israel.”

Haney noted that this was the date and time when Colombia’s new president is scheduled to take office and predicted that another announcement regarding the relocation of Colombia’s embassy to Jerusalem would follow.

He described Colombia as the latest in a series of Latin American countries turning toward Israel in pursuit of “shared values, shared prosperity and shared security.”

Haney also said that the Israel Allies Foundation, a pro-Israel advocacy group that works with lawmakers, would bring together representatives from 11 legislative bodies across Latin America in Buenos Aires over the weekend to sign a joint declaration of principles.

He noted that the organisation had successfully worked with Brazil’s legislature despite the position of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, whom he described as anti-Israel.

According to Haney, Brazil’s legislature has developed a plan to deepen relations with Israel over the next nine months.

Soibel said that 12 Latin American countries had renewed or strengthened their friendships with Israel and that interest in Israel among Spanish-language content creators, influencers and journalists continues to grow. Her organisation has brought 300 non-Jewish Hispanic journalists to Israel.

The panel also highlighted the launch of a Panama-based Spanish-language edition of JNS. Soibel said the work of pro-Israel organisations remains vital because so few such groups operate in the region, while, in her words, “Iran, Qatar and Hezbollah are conducting propaganda campaigns in Spanish throughout Latin America.”

She continued:

“You could probably count on one hand, perhaps two, the number of organisations and leaders operating across the Spanish-speaking world. That makes this work extraordinarily strategic. Its impact is enormous. Israel and the Jewish people should invest more. There is a large Hispanic-Israeli population in Israel, and many of them were victims of the October 7 attacks. We have stories to tell. What we need now is investment and distribution channels to spread those messages and information.”

The panel concluded on an optimistic note, with participants expressing confidence that Latin America will become an increasingly important pillar of Israel’s global diplomatic strategy in the years ahead.

Milei and Netanyahu launch new accord

Argentine President Javier Milei and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the launch of the Isaac Accords last Saturday.

The initiative establishes a new strategic framework aimed at strengthening cooperation among Argentina, Israel and like-minded partners across the Western Hemisphere, described as “the descendants of Isaac and nations rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition,” in defence of freedom and democracy and in the fight against terrorism, antisemitism and drug trafficking.

Participating countries will seek to strengthen coordination against what the agreement describes as terrorist organisations, with particular emphasis on “Iran’s efforts to expand terrorist networks and operational presence throughout the Western Hemisphere.”

The initiative also seeks to promote coordination and alignment in international forums while creating a framework for expanded cooperation in innovation, technology, trade and economic openness.

Speaking alongside Netanyahu at a joint press conference, Milei said:

“We expressed our unwavering support for the United States and Israel in their struggle against terrorism and the Iranian regime, not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because our countries are united through shared suffering.”

Milei referred to the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires and the 1994 attack on the AMIA Jewish community centre.

Although Argentine courts have attributed both attacks to Iran, Tehran has consistently denied any involvement.

Netanyahu praised the Argentine leader for demonstrating what he called “moral clarity” by standing with Israel and said he hoped other Latin American governments would join the Isaac Accords, which both leaders described as being inspired by the Abraham Accords.

The Abraham Accords, brokered by Washington in 2020, triggered a wave of normalisation in Arab-Israeli diplomatic relations.

US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee attended the signing ceremony and described Milei and Netanyahu as “President Trump’s two closest friends.”

Huckabee added: “I do not think there are two other world leaders whom our president respects as much and with whom he has such a personal relationship.”

During the visit, the two sides also announced the launch of the first direct commercial flights between Buenos Aires and Tel Aviv, scheduled to begin in November.

Milei said the new route would create an “unbreakable bond” between the two countries and reiterated his intention to relocate Argentina’s embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

“As soon as circumstances permit, we once again reaffirm our commitment to moving the Argentine embassy to Jerusalem,” he said.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey