The machinations of Palantir Technologies, the data analytics behemoth co-founded by Peter Thiel, are once again under the microscope. What the Financial Times aptly termed “The price of Palantir’s politics” isn’t merely a corporate ledger entry; it’s a chilling calculation of eroding civil liberties, privatized public services, and the silent expansion of a surveillance state. As of July 2026, the company’s aggressive pursuit of government and health contracts, coupled with its brazen political posturing, signals a dangerous trajectory that demands urgent progressive scrutiny and collective action.

The Current Reality

Palantir’s tentacles reach deep into both commercial and governmental sectors, often with profound and troubling implications. In April 2026, the company made waves by publishing a 22-point manifesto on X, advocating for “national service obligation” and asserting a “moral duty” for tech companies to support defense, while also taking thinly veiled swipes at “dysfunctional and regressive” cultures. This was met with sharp criticism, with one UK Member of Parliament reportedly calling it “supervillain ramblings”. Another manifesto in July 2026 championed “AI sovereignty” and decried “tokenmaxxing,” further cementing its ideological stance.

Perhaps most controversially, Palantir’s footprint in public health continues to spark outrage. In June 2026, protests erupted outside UK government buildings over the company’s £330 million contract with the National Health Service (NHS), with critics raising serious concerns about health data sovereignty and Palantir’s political affiliations. Adding fuel to the fire, the Financial Times revealed that NHS England had granted Palantir and other contractors access to patient data before it was anonymized. A report by the UK Parliament’s Science, Innovation, and Technology Committee in June 2026 explicitly warned that reliance on Palantir posed an “unacceptable” risk, citing the potential for “enshittification” of government services and concerns over the company’s alignment. London Mayor Sadiq Khan also blocked a proposed £50 million deal with the Metropolitan Police, stating that Londoners wanted public funds directed to companies that “share the values of our city”.

Across the Atlantic, Palantir’s enduring $30 million contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for its “ImmigrationOS” platform remains a focal point of public condemnation. This contract has been linked to an alarming 84% rise in ICE detentions and record-high deaths in custody since January 2025, drawing a letter of condemnation from 13 former Palantir employees. Furthermore, the company is involved as a subcontractor in the NIH’s “All of Us” initiative, which collects health data from up to a million Americans. Progressive voices raise ethical alarms about a company implicated in “Trump’s deportation machine” managing such sensitive information, especially since patient consent forms often do not explicitly mention Palantir’s involvement.

These contracts are not without consequence. In May 2026, 34 investors, collectively representing over $336 billion in assets, urged Palantir’s Board to conduct and publish a Human Rights Impact Assessment, citing the repeated allegations of surveillance, discrimination, and human rights harms associated with its technologies. Palantir, however, rejected the proposal, citing “confidentiality obligations”. This pressure culminated in ABP, the Netherlands’ largest pension fund, divesting from Palantir, with other U.S. state pension funds reportedly facing similar calls.

The company’s controversial actions extend to its internal culture and public messaging. In January 2026, following the killing of an American mother by an immigration enforcement officer, Palantir’s head of “strategic engagement” posted a highly disturbing, AI-generated video featuring the company’s logo amidst cultist imagery, including a grim reaper and a blood-soaked crucifix, alongside the slogan “Recon is watching you.” This caused an “absolute internal meltdown” and was swiftly removed, but it underscored the deeply unsettling ethos pervading parts of the company. Even the U.S. Department of Agriculture entered a $3.9 million contract with Palantir in May 2026 to surveil employees for return-to-office policy enforcement.

Financially, Palantir’s stock performance has been turbulent. Despite reporting robust Q1 2026 revenue growth of 85% year-over-year, its stock was down 36% by late June 2026 from its January open, trading near $113 from $177.75. This decline has been attributed to market “multiple compression,” ESG-driven selling pressure following its controversial manifestos, and increasing competition. However, the stock experienced a recent rebound in early July due to new defense contracts, including the U.S. Army’s adoption of Palantir’s Foundry as the core cloud data layer for its Next Generation Command and Control (NGC2) program, and a strategic initiative with NVIDIA. Yet, major tech players like Amazon Web Services and Microsoft are now investing billions to replicate Palantir’s “forward deployed engineering” model, signaling intense future competition.

A Progressive Critique

The narrative surrounding Palantir is not merely one of business growth, but of a dangerous ideological project unfolding in plain sight. From a progressive viewpoint, Palantir embodies the most concerning aspects of surveillance capitalism and the unholy alliance between private tech and state power. Its technologies, designed to aggregate and analyze vast, disparate datasets, serve as the digital infrastructure for intrusive government operations, from military targeting to immigration enforcement and even employee surveillance.

The company’s unwavering commitment to controversial government contracts, particularly with agencies like ICE, directly contributes to human rights abuses and the systemic targeting of marginalized communities. The allegations of its software being linked to increased ICE detentions and deaths in custody are not merely “political noise”; they are urgent humanitarian crises enabled by corporate complicity. The progressive lens sees Palantir not as a neutral software provider, but as an active participant in perpetuating systemic injustices, cloaked under the guise of “data-driven efficiency.”

Furthermore, Palantir’s deep entrenchment in vital public services like the NHS poses an existential threat to democratic oversight and data sovereignty. The reported access to unanonymized patient data and the opaque nature of its contracts are antithetical to public trust and the principles of universal, equitable healthcare. When a UK parliamentary committee expresses “unacceptable” risks from tech lock-in and a London mayor blocks a policing contract due to misaligned values, it highlights a profound distrust that Palantir’s “pro-West” manifestos do little to assuage. Instead, these ideological declarations from CEO Alex Karp, seen by some as “technofascism,” further politicize critical infrastructure and erode the notion of technology serving the common good.

The investor pressure for a Human Rights Impact Assessment, which Palantir vehemently resisted, underscores a fundamental ethical disconnect. True corporate responsibility demands transparency and accountability for how powerful technologies are used, especially when they have the potential for discrimination and harm. Palantir’s current political stance and operational practices represent a direct challenge to the progressive values of privacy, equity, and democratic control over technology.

The Path Forward

Reining in companies like Palantir requires a multi-pronged progressive strategy focused on robust regulation, public sector empowerment, and democratic accountability.

  1. Strict Data Governance and Privacy Laws: Governments must enact and rigorously enforce comprehensive data protection laws that prioritize individual privacy over corporate profit and state surveillance. These laws should mandate explicit consent for data collection, prohibit the sharing of unanonymized sensitive data with private entities, and establish independent oversight bodies with enforcement powers.
  2. Mandatory Human Rights Impact Assessments: Legislation should compel all companies contracting with public entities, especially those dealing with sensitive data or national security, to conduct and publicly disclose independent Human Rights Impact Assessments. This would provide crucial transparency into the potential for harm and hold corporations accountable for their ethical footprint.
  3. Invest in Public Sector Tech Capacity: To break the “lock-in” effect highlighted by the UK Parliament, governments must invest heavily in developing their own open-source, publicly-owned data infrastructure and analytical capabilities. This reduces reliance on private vendors like Palantir, ensuring that critical public services are governed by democratic institutions, not corporate interests. France’s move to migrate from Palantir to a domestic firm to break “strategic dependencies” is a model to consider.
  4. Ethical Procurement Frameworks: Public procurement policies should be overhauled to include stringent ethical criteria beyond mere cost-effectiveness. This means evaluating companies based on their human rights records, privacy practices, transparency, and alignment with democratic values. Local officials, like London’s Sadiq Khan, who prioritize shared values in contracting, should be emulated nationwide.
  5. Divestment and Shareholder Activism: Progressive investors and public pension funds should continue to exert pressure through divestment campaigns and shareholder resolutions, demanding greater accountability and ethical conduct from companies like Palantir. The actions of ABP and other institutional investors demonstrate the power of financial leverage in pushing for change.

The “price of Palantir’s politics” is too high for our democracies to bear. It is time for a concerted progressive effort to dismantle the architecture of surveillance capitalism and reclaim our data, our privacy, and our future from the unchecked power of corporations operating in the shadows of the state.