Palantir: The Company That Became America's Operating System for Coercion

12 min read

January 2024. I’m reading about Palantir’s stock price hitting all-time highs and getting featured on CNBC as a “defense tech darling.”

Three tabs over, I’m looking at FOIA documents showing Palantir systems being used to track undocumented families across state lines.

Same company. Same week. Completely different coverage.

And that cognitive dissonance is kind of the whole story with Palantir. It’s simultaneously a boring government contractor and possibly the most consequential surveillance company most people have never heard of.

TL;DR:

Origins: CIA Money and PayPal DNA 🧬

Palantir Technologies was founded in 2003 by Peter Thiel, Alex Karp, Stephen Cohen, Joe Lonsdale, and Nathan Gettings. The origin story matters because it explains a lot about what the company became.

The founding premise was straightforward: take the fraud detection algorithms that made PayPal work (patterns across millions of transactions, identifying anomalies, linking seemingly unrelated events) and apply them to counterterrorism and intelligence analysis.

Here’s the thing that wasn’t incidental: Palantir received early backing via In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital arm.

That’s not conspiracy speculation. That’s documented in Forbes investigative reporting. In-Q-Tel helped Palantir survive its early struggles and gave it credibility with the broader intelligence ecosystem.

The company didn’t just happen to get intelligence contracts later. It was built from the ground up to serve intelligence agencies.

The ideological tension worth noting

Critics point to a recurring tension in Palantir’s DNA that goes beyond typical government contracting.

Peter Thiel, the co-founder and primary financier, has been associated with anti-institutional and skeptical-of-democracy strains of libertarian thought. He’s been a power broker in U.S. conservative politics and has written explicitly about doubting whether freedom and democracy are compatible.

That ideological background matters when you’re building large-scale state data infrastructure. Palantir isn’t just another defense contractor. It’s a company founded by people skeptical of democratic governance who’ve built tools that dramatically expand government surveillance capacity.

The most honest assessment? That tension (skepticism of democracy combined with building systems that enable unprecedented state power) is either a profound irony or entirely consistent depending on your read of the founders’ actual goals.

What Palantir Actually Sells 💻

Palantir’s core products are commonly described as:

Gotham: The government/defense/intelligence platform. It fuses disparate data sources and enables investigation workflows. Think of it as the operating system that connects databases that weren’t designed to talk to each other.

Foundry: The enterprise/commercial platform, increasingly used by governments for “modernization” efforts. Same basic idea: integrate data, enable decisions, operationalize analysis.

Here’s what makes Palantir different from generic database software: it’s designed to turn disconnected information into actionable intelligence at scale.

The recurring civil liberties concern isn’t about a single feature. It’s about the pattern. Palantir platforms:

  1. Ingest many sources (DMV records, social media, financial transactions, cell phone location data, surveillance footage)
  2. Link entities (this phone number connects to this address connects to this social security number connects to this vehicle)
  3. Operationalize analysis into action (investigation targets, enforcement queues, operational decisions)

When critics talk about Palantir enabling “surveillance states,” this is what they mean. It’s not that Palantir invented government databases. It’s that Palantir made them interoperable and actionable in ways they weren’t before.

A police department that had data in 47 disconnected systems now has one searchable interface. An immigration enforcement agency that couldn’t efficiently cross-reference records now can.

Whether you see that as “modernization” or “mass surveillance infrastructure” probably depends on how much you trust the institutions doing the searching.

The ICE Connection 🧊

This is where Palantir’s work has generated the most sustained criticism.

Palantir has deep, well-documented ties to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This isn’t speculation. It’s documented via FOIA requests, public contracts, and investigative journalism.

The systems they built

EPIC (the Electronic Privacy Information Center) filed FOIA requests and litigation seeking records on Palantir-built or maintained ICE systems, including:

  • FALCON: A surveillance and analytics platform
  • Investigative Case Management (ICM): The system that tracks cases through enforcement

ICE contract documentation is publicly posted and confirms Palantir as a major vendor.

The Guardian published a major investigative account based on FOIA-obtained documents describing how Palantir tools became embedded into ICE operational practice over years.

What this means in practice

Palantir didn’t just sell software to ICE. It built the data infrastructure that makes industrial-scale immigration enforcement possible.

When critics frame this as “complicity in violent hegemony,” here’s the concrete mechanism: immigration enforcement is treated by many critics as domestic counterinsurgency at the border. Palantir provides the data infrastructure that makes that enforcement faster, broader, and harder for individuals to contest.

Whether you view ICE enforcement as legitimate law enforcement or state violence against vulnerable populations shapes how you interpret Palantir’s role. But the factual claim (Palantir built the systems, they’re deeply embedded, they enable operations that wouldn’t be possible otherwise) is well-supported by primary documents.

Predictive Policing: When Counterterror Tech Comes Home 🚔

Palantir’s move into local and state law enforcement brought “police-state” critiques into mainstream civil liberties spaces.

New Orleans: A case study in opacity

The ACLU documented how New Orleans’ use of Palantir-linked analytics became a case study in accountability gaps and harmful feedback loops.

The program operated in secret for years. The dispute centered on whether it constituted “predictive policing” (using data to predict where crimes will occur or who will commit them) versus “risk assessment” tooling. The distinction matters legally and ethically, but from a civil liberties perspective, both involve algorithms making judgments about people before they’ve done anything.

California: The LAPD ecosystem

WIRED’s investigative reporting describes Palantir’s policing push in California and the risks:

  • Mass data aggregation across multiple agencies
  • Vendor lock-in once you’ve built your workflows around Palantir
  • Cost spirals as the system becomes essential
  • Opaque profiling that can reproduce biased policing at scale

LA County contracting materials show the procurement patterns.

The boomerang effect

This is the pattern critics call the “boomerang”: tools built for foreign intelligence and war migrate home, turning counterterror infrastructure inward.

What was designed to find terrorists abroad is now being used to track suspected gang members, homeless encampments, and protest activity. The same analytical techniques, the same data fusion, the same entity-linking capabilities.

The technology doesn’t know the difference between “foreign enemy” and “domestic citizen.” It just links data points.

Team Themis: When the Mask Slipped 🎭

One of the clearest “shady” historical episodes tied to Palantir was the 2011 HBGary/Anonymous email leak.

Here’s what WIRED reported at the time:

A proposed effort involving Palantir, Berico, and HBGary Federal (often referenced as “Team Themis”) was connected to plans to target WikiLeaks and its perceived supporters. The leaked documents described discrediting tactics, disinformation campaigns, and disruption operations against journalists and activists.

This wasn’t a theoretical capability discussion. These were operational proposals.

Palantir’s CEO Alex Karp issued an apology and the company publicly distanced itself from the effort after the emails became public.

But this episode keeps getting cited because it shows something important: how a security-oriented contractor ecosystem can slide into political and activist targeting. The proposed targets weren’t foreign enemies. They were American journalists and transparency advocates.

Palantir apologized. They said it was unauthorized. Maybe so.

But the incident demonstrated that the people with access to these tools were at least willing to consider using them against domestic political targets. And the tools themselves don’t have built-in safeguards against that kind of mission creep.

Cambridge Analytica: The Uncomfortable Proximity 🔗

Palantir faced scrutiny for proximity to the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

TechCrunch reported that Palantir confirmed a staff link: a Palantir employee worked with Cambridge Analytica and accessed data tied to the Facebook data harvesting scandal.

Palantir’s position: This was individual conduct, not a corporate product deployment.

Critics’ read: Even if true, it reinforced a perception that Palantir sits inside an ecosystem where large-scale data extraction and political influence operations overlap.

The Cambridge Analytica scandal involved harvesting data from millions of Facebook users without consent to build psychological profiles for political targeting. Whether Palantir as a company was directly involved or merely had an employee who crossed streams, the proximity to that world isn’t great optics for a company asking governments to trust it with sensitive data.

International Expansion: The Operating System for Allied Warfighting 🌍

Recent years added new fuel to the “complicity” argument as Palantir partnered more openly with allied militaries.

Israel

Bloomberg reported a strategic partnership with Israel’s Ministry of Defense to supply technology supporting “war-related missions.”

This has become a focal point for human-rights groups and critics alleging complicity in harms to civilians. The claims vary widely and should be evaluated carefully case-by-case, but the partnership itself is well-sourced and not disputed.

Ukraine

Reuters and the Financial Times reported Palantir partnerships in Ukraine tied to battlefield data platforms and AI training efforts.

This raises different questions. Many people who oppose Palantir’s domestic surveillance work support Ukraine’s defense against Russian invasion. The Palantir partnership in Ukraine is harder to frame as “authoritarian” since it’s helping a democracy defend itself.

The critical lens

Critics view this expansion as Palantir becoming an “operating system” for allied warfighting and security alignment, extending U.S.-centric military tech norms globally.

The interpretation depends on your priors: If you see U.S. power projection as fundamentally legitimate, Palantir is modernizing defense infrastructure. If you see it as hegemonic violence, Palantir is building the data backbone for empire.

The UK: NHS Data and Defense Revolving Door 🇬🇧

Palantir’s UK footprint became a major controversy cluster with two distinct threads.

NHS data platforms

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported that Palantir received “emergency” COVID-era NHS data contracts. The company had been positioning for longer-term NHS work for months before the pandemic created the emergency justification.

The Guardian covered political and medical backlash over Palantir’s role in the NHS Federated Data Platform. Doctors’ groups and MPs raised trust and governance concerns about a U.S. surveillance contractor handling British patient data.

The concern isn’t just privacy in the abstract. It’s that a company built on intelligence analysis and with deep ties to U.S. security services would have access to the health records of an entire population.

The defense pipeline

openDemocracy reported on UK Ministry of Defence contracting and what they described as a “pipeline” narrative: personnel moving from MoD positions into Palantir, followed by a major defense contract award.

Revolving door concerns aren’t unique to Palantir, but they reinforce the broader critique that the company operates inside a closed loop of government connections rather than winning contracts purely on technical merit.

The “Violent Hegemony” Interpretation 🎯

Let me be direct about what’s strongly supported versus what’s interpretive.

Strongly supported by primary documents and investigative reporting:

  • Deep early ties to the intelligence ecosystem and In-Q-Tel backing
  • ICE integration and surveillance-enabling tooling, documented via FOIA and contracts
  • The 2011 “Team Themis” scandal and Palantir’s public distancing afterward
  • Domestic policing expansion with documented concerns about opacity and bias amplification
  • Publicly reported international defense partnerships (Israel, Ukraine, UK)
  • Cambridge Analytica staff overlap, confirmed by Palantir

The “complicit in violent U.S. hegemony” claim:

That’s an interpretive political conclusion. But it’s grounded in a concrete pattern.

Palantir builds and runs data integration and decision infrastructure for institutions that execute coercive state power (war, intelligence, border enforcement, policing). And it has repeatedly expanded deeper into those missions rather than away from them.

Whether “coercive state power” is legitimate depends on your political framework. What’s factual is that Palantir has become structural infrastructure for it.

The Contrarian Take 🤔

Here’s where I’ll break from both the Palantir boosters and the purist critics.

The boosters’ problem: Pretending Palantir is just another tech company ignores its specific history, its specific clients, and the specific ways its tools enable state power. You can’t separate “neutral data analysis” from “enabling ICE deportation operations.” The tool and its use are entangled.

The purist critics’ problem: Demonizing Palantir as uniquely evil ignores that most of what it does could (and would) be done by other contractors. Oracle, Microsoft, Amazon, and dozens of other tech companies compete for the same government contracts. If Palantir disappeared tomorrow, the surveillance infrastructure wouldn’t.

The trapped-between framing: Palantir sits at the intersection of two uncomfortable truths.

First: Governments have always conducted surveillance, intelligence, and enforcement. Modern data integration makes those activities more efficient and comprehensive. You can oppose that efficiency while recognizing it was probably inevitable once the technology existed.

Second: Palantir specifically sought out and built infrastructure for the most coercive functions of the state. It didn’t accidentally end up running ICE systems. That was the founding vision: take intelligence analysis tools and operationalize them.

So what’s the honest assessment?

Palantir is neither a uniquely malevolent actor nor a neutral technology provider. It’s a company that made deliberate choices to build its business model around state coercion, and those choices have consequences.

Whether that makes Palantir “complicit in violent hegemony” or “a legitimate defense contractor” says as much about your political priors as it does about the company.

What’s not really debatable is this: Palantir has become structural infrastructure for how the U.S. and its allies project power, enforce borders, and conduct surveillance at scale. That’s not marketing copy. That’s the business model.

Bottom Line

Palantir isn’t the only company doing this work. But it might be the most self-aware about what it’s doing.

The founders explicitly built a company to integrate data for intelligence and enforcement purposes. They took CIA money to get started. They expanded into immigration enforcement, policing, military operations, and allied defense partnerships systematically and deliberately.

The question isn’t whether Palantir is “good” or “evil.” That framing is too simple for a company this embedded in the machinery of state power.

The questions worth sitting with:

  • What does it mean when one company provides the data infrastructure for ICE, local police, military operations, and allied warfighting?
  • How do we evaluate a company whose business model is making state coercion more efficient?
  • What oversight mechanisms exist for a private company that operates inside the most sensitive government functions?

Palantir’s defenders say the company is just providing tools. Governments decide how to use them.

Palantir’s critics say the company actively sought out the most coercive government functions and optimized for them.

Both are true. And that’s kind of the point.

The infrastructure for surveillance and enforcement doesn’t build itself. Someone has to make the choice to build it. Palantir made that choice and became very successful doing so.

Whether that success represents a cautionary tale about the privatization of state power or a necessary modernization of government capability depends entirely on how much you trust the institutions wielding that power.

Looking at the trajectory, I know where my concerns land.

Tags

surveillance palantir privacy civil liberties data military immigration policing

Share this article

𝕏 BlueSky Threads LinkedIn Mastodon