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

Pentagon and Justice Department form joint task force to combat media leaks

Published

on

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced on Monday that the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice have established a joint task force as part of efforts to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information to the public.

Hegseth stated that the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) of the Department of Defense will have the authority to request and receive all information, support, and records across the Pentagon related to media leak investigations.

The Defense Secretary noted that all departments and personnel within the ministry will prioritize these requests. He added that a complete and comprehensive response to any instruction issued by the OGC under this authority must be provided within two days of the submission of the request.

“Leaked information risks lives. These new tools and processes will greatly assist us in protecting our collective strength. Our nation’s security cannot be a bargaining chip for those chasing instant headlines,” Hegseth said in an approximately two-and-a-half-minute video message published on the social media platform X.

Hegseth also stated, “Access to classified and confidential information is a sacred trust, and those who betray this trust will face the full force of the law.”

The announcement of the task force came a few days after the Department of Justice issued subpoenas to four New York Times reporters. The journalists, summoned to testify before a federal grand jury, had reported on security concerns regarding President Donald Trump’s flight to Türkiye for a NATO summit on an aircraft donated by Qatar.

The subpoenas drew sharp criticism from The New York Times and press freedom advocates. Opponents argue that the government is attempting to intimidate news organizations.

“Our journalists report the facts and defend the American public’s right to know how their government operates and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” New York Times attorney David McCraw said in a statement. “This brazen action is nothing less than an attempt to deter journalists from doing their jobs, thereby preventing the public from learning what is happening in the country.”

Hegseth has been taking steps to prevent leaks to the press since the beginning of his tenure at the Pentagon. Last year, the department launched investigations into personnel alleged to have leaked classified information to the media and threatened to administer polygraph tests.

Leak allegations were also directed at some of Hegseth’s advisers last year. Former senior adviser Dan Caldwell and former deputy chief of staff Darin Selnick are among those individuals. Caldwell, Selnick, and Colin Carroll, the former chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of Defense Stephen A. Feinberg, were first suspended and subsequently dismissed from their positions and removed from the Pentagon as part of the internal leak investigation.

A government official, speaking to The Hill in mid-March, stated there was no evidence that Caldwell, who began working at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) earlier this year, had leaked information from the Pentagon.

Defense Secretary Hegseth has previously been the target of criticism himself for allegedly sharing sensitive information. Last year, Hegseth discussed planned US strikes against the Houthis in Yemen in a Signal group chat to which an editor of The Atlantic magazine had been mistakenly added. A report published in December by the Pentagon’s Office of the Inspector General determined that Hegseth had compromised military security and violated department policy by using the Signal application on his personal mobile phone.

“It is highly ironic that Hegseth himself shared sensitive national defense information with his wife over Signal last year and faced no consequences, yet now speaks of the need to protect this information,” said former Pentagon spokesperson John Ullyot. “In 2012, CIA Director David Petraeus resigned from his post for a similar situation involving his girlfriend, and was sentenced in federal court to two years of probation and a $10,000 fine.”

Ullyot, who also served as the spokesperson for the National Security Council during Trump’s first term, told The Hill on Monday: “The President deserves better from his national security leaders. Hegseth should start holding himself accountable before holding others accountable.”

Reporters have been largely blocked from entering the Pentagon after Hegseth revoked access to most of the facility. Pentagon correspondents returned their press credentials in October, refusing to sign a new media policy that required a commitment not to solicit unauthorized materials.

Hegseth and his supporters argue that the policy will protect national security by preventing the leak of classified information. Press freedom groups and critics, conversely, characterize the practice as a violation of the constitutional rights of journalists.

Most recently, the department further restricted press access by declaring the Pentagon building a classified space and banning journalists from entering.

Offering historical references in his statement on Monday, Hegseth said, “Leaking sensitive national defense information and secrets is a betrayal of the men and women who wear the uniform of our country. This is a principle as old as the history of warfare, reaching back to the founding of our republic in the United States. George Washington himself combated leaks, insider threats, and espionage.”

Continue Reading

America

SpaceX shares fall 40% from peak to approach IPO floor as regulatory scrutiny weighs

Published

on

Shares of the American aerospace company SpaceX fell to as low as $136.78 at the trough of the trading session on Monday, July 13, representing a 5.87% decline compared to the close of trading on July 10. According to data from the US-based NASDAQ exchange, this retreat marks a depreciation of approximately 40% from the company’s historic peak of $225.64, which was recorded on June 16. With this latest decline, the company’s shares have approached their initial public offering (IPO) price threshold of $135.

As of 21:25 Moscow time on the trading day in question, the shares continued to trade at $137.4, down 5.4%.

The downward trend in the shares was driven by reports that the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had concluded its investigation into the emergencies and malfunctions during the May 22 launch of Starship, the largest and most powerful rocket model developed by SpaceX.

According to CNBC, the agency reviewed and approved the findings and corrective measures submitted by the company following its internal investigation into the incident.

The Starship project, a massive, reusable rocket designed to carry crew and cargo to the Moon and Mars and to perform other space missions, is considered one of the most critical elements of Elon Musk’s space program.

In a statement issued by the FAA, it was noted that following the approved corrective actions, SpaceX is permitted to begin preparations for the Starship Flight 13 flight, provided that the company meets all safety requirements and licensing conditions.

The FAA had previously issued a statement regarding the malfunction during the launch attempt at the end of May. The statement noted: “The anomaly occurred during the Super Heavy booster’s flip maneuver over the Gulf of America.”

The region referred to as the Gulf of America by US authorities in official correspondence is commonly known as the Gulf of Mexico.

According to official data, the booster parts fell within the boundaries of pre-established hazard areas. Six flights were delayed and five aircraft remained in holding patterns for a period due to the incident, though no changes were made to flight routes.

SpaceX shares, which began trading on the NASDAQ exchange at the beginning of June, gained 25% at the opening. As part of the initial public offering, the company offered 555.6 million shares for sale at a fixed price of $135 per share.

The SpaceX IPO was recorded as the largest initial public offering in financial history. The company initially raised $75 billion, and the total funds raised reached $85.7 billion after consortium members exercised their over-allotment option to purchase an additional 83.3 million shares.

In a statement to his employees, company founder Elon Musk stated that going public was necessary to generate capital during a phase of rapid growth. It was announced that the proceeds would be used to complete the development process of the Starship rockets, bring them to commercial readiness, and expand the Starlink satellite network.

The post-IPO surge in SpaceX shares had briefly made Elon Musk the world’s first trillionaire. Bloomberg had estimated Musk’s wealth at $1.05 trillion, while Forbes valued it at $1.1 trillion.

However, with the decline in share prices and the company’s market value that began in late June, Musk lost his trillionaire title after holding it for 12 days.

According to an analysis by Bloomberg, the decline was driven by SpaceX’s preparations to issue at least $20 billion in bonds to finance artificial intelligence projects, alongside the signing of a multi-billion-dollar agreement with AI startup Reflection AI to provide computing resources.

Assessments by S&P Global projected that SpaceX will continue to incur expenditures without generating revenue until at least 2029.

Continue Reading

America

Trump notifies Congress of renewed war with Iran, resetting War Powers clock

Published

on

US President Donald Trump has formally notified lawmakers that the country is back at war with Iran, according to an official notification sent to Congress over the weekend.

In the letter dated July 10 and obtained by Politico, Trump stated that airstrikes beginning on July 7 constituted “military actions consistent with my responsibility to protect Americans and US interests both at home and abroad.”

The notification triggers a new 60-day statutory window under which the US administration can utilize military force in the region without prior congressional approval.

The conflict, which has repeatedly paused and restarted over control of the Strait of Hormuz—a crucial chokepoint for global energy supplies—has become a persistent challenge for the Trump administration.

Trump has expressed frustration over the failure to secure a peace agreement with Iran, while congressional Republicans remain concerned about being blamed for rising fuel prices ahead of the upcoming midterm elections.

On Monday, Trump intensified military pressure on Tehran, declaring that the US would reimpose a blockade on the region, seize control of the Strait of Hormuz, and levy fees on transiting vessels.

Ceasefire process officially ends

The notification to Congress follows Trump’s announcement that a two-month-old ceasefire with Iran has officially ended.

The ceasefire, originally declared in April, had been fragile from the outset due to reciprocal attacks by both nations. Despite the friction, the Trump administration had previously maintained that a full-scale war had not resumed.

Officials from US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced that US forces have struck more than 300 Iranian military targets over the past week in retaliation for Tehran’s hostile actions in the Strait of Hormuz.

On Monday, CENTCOM released a statement confirming that US forces had conducted additional airstrikes against Iran “at the direction of the Commander-in-Chief.”

“These strikes will continue to impose heavy costs on Iranian forces, degrading their capability to attack innocent civilians and commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz,” the statement read.

War powers debate

Trump had previously notified Congress that the war, which began in February, had “ended” in May, thereby resetting the 60-day statutory clock that would otherwise require the cessation of military operations without congressional authorization.

With the April ceasefire intended to run indefinitely, the White House argued that the timeline mandated by the War Powers Act had been paused.

However, anti-war lawmakers in Congress challenged this interpretation. They argued that the government was misapplying the law, noting that even when major combat operations subsided, the US Navy maintained its blockade to exert pressure on Tehran.

The new notification complicates ongoing efforts within Congress to limit military action against Iran. Last month, the Senate passed a symbolic resolution calling for an end to the hostilities, signaling waning support for Trump’s military campaign against Tehran.

The resolution, which passed 50 to 48 after four Republican senators voted with Democrats, sought to make congressional approval a requirement for continued military operations.

A similar measure had previously passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 215 to 208, also drawing the support of four Republicans.

The legislative impact of these measures remains limited, however, as joint resolutions are not sent to the president for signature, and any bill seeking to restrict executive war powers would face a certain White House veto.

In his letter to Congress, Trump emphasized that US military forces remain deployed to counter threats against allies.

“United States Armed Forces remain postured to take additional steps, as necessary and appropriate, to address further threats or attacks against the United States, its allies, or its partners, and to ensure that the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran ceases to pose a threat to the United States and its partners,” Trump wrote.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey