348
Productivity & Workflow347
Automation & Workflow240
Software Development246
Marketing & Growth203
AI Infrastructure & MLOps192
Photography & Imaging160
Writing & Content Creation194
Design & Creative170
Data & Analytics166
Customer Support153
Education & Learning137
Sales & Outreach130
Voice & Speech130
Operations & Admin119
Alex Karp described himself and Palantir as progressive, while recent earnings call comments focused on supporting war fighters and market dominance.
In short: Palantir CEO Alex Karp has been publicly calling himself and his company “progressive,” even as he praises Palantir’s role in military and government work.
Alex Karp, the chief executive of Palantir, told Politico this week that he is a “progressive” and said Palantir’s products are “essentially progressive.” Politico reported he used the word “progressive” eight times. Karp also said he has been a Democrat his whole life.
Karp has described himself this way before. Past reporting has said he voted for Hillary Clinton and has donated to Democratic candidates, including $360,000 in 2023 to a Biden and Harris fundraising effort. He also donated $1 million the next year to MAGA, Inc.
In a recent letter to shareholders, Karp argued that Palantir workers are “the pioneers of a genuine and viable antiwar movement.” On Palantir’s earnings call on November 2, he explained this by saying Palantir products are meant to “avoid war” by making potential enemies expect severe consequences. He also said that when wars are necessary, the US and its allies need the “very best tools,” and he described supporting the “war fighter” as part of Palantir’s mission.
The Wired report also notes that Palantir has provided tools tied to immigration enforcement and to military use cases, including systems that use generative AI (software that can create text, like a chatbot) to help plan operations.
Palantir is a major government contractor, and about half its revenue reportedly comes from government work. When its CEO describes the company as “progressive,” it raises a simple question for voters and taxpayers: what values are being used to justify powerful software that can influence policing, immigration enforcement, and military decisions.
Source: Wired