Alex Karp Defends Palantir’s Work With ICE

0:00This episode was recorded at the 2025 DealBook Summit. This year's DealBook Summit sponsors include Premier Sponsor Accenture, Associate Sponsors U.S. Bank, Vanguard, Invesco QQQ, and University of Michigan, Supporting Sponsor Capital One, and Contributing Sponsor Invest Puerto Rico.

0:25I care about two issues. I care about immigration and reestablishing the deterrent capacity of America without being a colonial neocon view. And on those two issues, those two issues, this president has performed.

0:44This is Andrew Ross Sorkin with The New York Times, and you're listening to interviews from our annual Dealbook Summit, recorded on December 3rd in New York City.

0:58Good morning, everybody. Palantir's Alex Karp is here, and we are going to get into it. Alex, thank you for being here. Palantir is named after the seeing stones in J.R.R.'s, Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Palantir has a complicated, let's say sometimes secretive, controversial business that helps the U.S. and other countries and governments around the world make sense of complicated data. That's what they do. Its business has soared in the age of artificial intelligence. Today it is among the top 30 most valuable companies in the world. It is worth$400 billion. and after October 7th, CARP has been perhaps singularly the most outspoken CEO in America to support Israel.

1:41Week after the attack, he took out a full-page ad in this newspaper, the New York Times, had four words on it. It said Palantir stands with Israel. I should say the IDF and Mossad are clients of Palantir. There are a lot of questions about what they are doing here in the U.S., including their contract with ICE and their work around the world, and we are going to talk about all of it. Alex, thank you for being with us. Couldn't imagine why we're controversial. I couldn't imagine. Let's discuss this, because I think... By the way, I see that as we're on the side of... I mean, you know, when you support allies, it's funny, in Israel, which I guess typically is the most controversial in public, interestingly, often the least controversial in private, and I do support all those things, it doesn't actually mean that you support every decision.

2:29It means you support them having a superior position to their adversaries. That really starts with America, which is, you know, I think one of the real problems that the non-controversial companies have is they can't admit what they think in private, which is they believe what they're doing is better and superior to what other people are doing. I want to get into all of that, but I'll tell you where I want to start. I want to start with this. You wrote a book last year called The Technological Republic, and you quote Samuel Huntington in it, that argues the following, argues that the rise of the West was not made possible, quote, by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence.

3:14What did you mean by that? And is that what Palantir ultimately does? Well, I think one of the most interesting about that quote is it's indisputably and obviously true. You genuinely believe that the U.S., this idea of ideas, values, religion, has nothing to do with it. You think it really is about organizing violence? No, no, no, no. Sorry, I didn't say that our ideas aren't important. Obviously, I come from an academic family, and I was planning to be an academic before I realized it was worthless, and I'd be better at building things. We should talk about that, too. But, like, okay, one of the biggest problems we have in our elite institutions, especially our Ivy Leagues, is this indisputable truth that no one would listen to the spirit of our ideas if our ability to organize in violence was inferior.

4:02That every single person in the world believes outside of the faculty of Harvard, and certainly all of our adversaries know to be true, is viewed as something that's kind of worthy of great discussion and dispute. And the primary reason they dispute it, honestly, is because at their core, they want to undermine the superiority of Western values, which are meritocracy, rule of law, accepting that inputs and outputs are not the same, that are the basis of building the superiority on the military plane. You think that the university culture is trying to undermine that? Well, I think it's moved from the 50s where it was trying to explain why our constitution is the best way to organize our lives, not others.

4:45why meritocracy is necessary, even if it means letting in immigrants to your institution, why inputs and outputs aren't the same, why the First, Second, Third, Fourth Amendment are unique, and why it was worth standing up for these values has literally been transformed, especially in the humanities departments, too. Of course none of that could work because no one like us is good at doing that, basically. I mean, that's like... And therefore, the whole thing couldn't work. And downstream of that is enormous dysfunction. And you see this in all sorts of issues. Our primary and most important adversary, I say adversary consciously and not enemy, is China.

5:27And we will decide, AI and the ability to implement it on the battlefield primarily, will decide the values, i.e. the norms, the laws, and the spirit of the laws that are imposed upon us across the globe. And if you think for a minute they believe anything that we're being taught in our idiotic faculty, you are even more idiotic than the professors teaching you. And I'll tell you, if you actually believe in these values, again, I'm not a neocon, I never was. That's why I'm skeptical of immigration, because I don't think cultural. all this cultural assimilation hasn't worked in the last 50 years, and that's an obvious truth you're also not allowed to say.

6:05I'm skeptical of imposing values on other people. I never believed we should or try to make their Middle East people like a Wilsonian ideal imposed upon them. If you believe for a second that anyone else outside this country believes that we are going to defend our values without superiority and moral violence, you're just living in a world that doesn't exist. It does not exist. And no matter how much you try to impose it on the rest of us, it still won't exist. Okay, I want to talk about you for a second and your own politics and your shift in politics. By the way, there's a piece in the Washington Post about you this morning that gets into some of this.

6:41You grew up in a... Only because I have great respect for you. I don't interrupt you immediately. I didn't shift my politics. The political parties have shifted their politics. The idea that what's being called progressive is in any way progressive is a complete farce. I've been progressive since the beginning of Palantir. I grew up in a highly intellectual, mostly Jewish, incredibly left-wing environment. And every Saturday and every Friday I heard a lecture about how the conservatives are going to destroy this country with illegal immigration because it's going to undermine the fabric of the American worker.

7:17That was 50 years ago. That's what it means to be a progressive. And being a progressive doesn't mean just, oh, it feels so good to be involved in dysfunction, things that can never work, a form of socialism that's never worked, having no meritocracy. That's not progressive. That's pretend, that's honestly cowardly. And most people, half my old party knows it. They don't speak up. It's bullshit. It will never work. You know, the biggest problem with that is it's not helping the poor people that they claim serve. If you think that's helping a black person in the inner city, you're ridiculous. The last thing anyone in this country needs is a dysfunctional educational system and handouts that have never worked and are not going to work.

7:56Okay, let me ask you, though, because I know you say you didn't shift your view, but I do want to read you something that appears as if you shifted your view. This is back in 2017 about Trump. You said, quote, I respect nothing about the dude. It would be hard to make up someone I find less appealing. You know, there's a lot of things that are quoted about me that were not quoted in public. Like in this book, biography, there's tons and tons of quotes. I'll give you a different version of this. A lot of these quote, you're not really doing this, and I have actually, we've been at this for almost a decade.

8:35And he was kind enough to interview me when I was a complete clown and joked to everyone else besides me and our motley crew of Palantir. And I greatly appreciate that. Thank you. One of the biggest lessons, and just a slight detour to the wonderful and very important country of Germany that is seeming to be crashing its German functionality and competence into the ground of political correctness that it somehow can escape for historical reasons. The minute you judge somebody by anything but the issues you agree with. So in Germany, the Green Party and the Socialists have convinced the majority party they can never vote with the far right on immigration.

9:12I care about two issues. I care about immigration and reestablishing the deterrent capacity of America without being a colonialist neocon view. And on those two issues, those two issues, this president has performed. And those are the two issues I care about. So what were the issues that you didn't agree with when you said he was not an appealing dude before? What was that? First of all, you're quoting somebody who's quoting me off the record that's in the public record. I care about two issues. I am not going to be proxy corralled into having no power by something of like, well, I care about these two issues.

9:50By the way, I was a supporter of the Democratic Party. What two issues did the Democratic Party not perform on? Does anyone think the Democratic Party performed on migration or deterrence? That's crazy. Now, you could care about different issues. I'm pro-choice. It's not my number one issue. I'm wildly pro-gay rights. It's not my number one issue. The minute you allow yourself to be corralled into, I disagree with this person, I disagree. You've basically transferred your power to one party. Palantir and I am not transferring my power and our influence, which honestly, you know, the mainstream media at the Washington Post and at the New York Times doesn't always like me.

10:29That's great, because you know who does like me? About 10 million people, primarily dudes in this country. And you know what? I'm going to use my whole influence to make sure this country stays skeptical on migration and has a deterrent capacity that it only uses selectively. Okay, let me ask you this. And this goes to maybe, I don't know if it has to do with just being a blunt instrument, compassion, what have you. I think you could argue, in terms of immigration policy, that you don't want to have illegal immigrants in the country or you want to prevent illegal immigrants from coming into the country, etc.

11:00We are now seeing ICE working its way around the country and oftentimes ripping people off the streets with masks on. You and Palantir are working hand-in-hand with ICE. That's public. What do you make of that? What do you make of the... It's not necessarily the policy, but the approach to the policy. Let me give you my critique of what I would call... I think this questioning is proxy culpable of. Our country has selective empathy for everybody but working class, particularly white males. So when you look at coverage in mainstream newspapers about the constitutionality of blowing up boats that are bringing fentanyl here, I guarantee you if that fentanyl was killing people at schools we went to, potentially your kids are going to, it would be constitutional to blow up those boats.

11:52There is selective instrumental use of empathy that somehow is only applied at the point where it would help us. Back to the idea. Sorry, you asked the question. You're going to get the full answer you don't want. The full answer you don't want. You brought me on stage. You know what you're getting. Okay. And, by the way, I'm on stage, and I know a lot of the people on stage sponsoring this are skeptical of me. You know why? I'm on stage here because at Palantir, and I would encourage you to think of this, I divide the world into Palantir, essentially, Palantir Derangement Syndrome, Palantir Skeptics, and Palantir Haters.

12:33My biggest fans started off as Palantir Skeptics and Palantir Haters. I believe that someday almost everyone in this audience is going to agree with me. You may not like me now, but you're going to agree later. I'll also tell you something. Look to the left, look to the right. the person you think is offended by this actually agrees with me. That is 100 % true. Okay, sorry. And yeah, it's 100 % true. And keep that in mind. I will tell you a secret that I hope the New York Times and the Washington Post doesn't listen to. Okay, sorry. I just want to bring us back to this one issue, which is, no, no, you talked about the rule of law, and you talked about things being constitutional.

13:16And so here we are, we're talking about these boats, for example, that were blown up, right? And whether you have empathy for them or not, given the folks who are getting killed by fentanyl, the question is whether this is being done on a constitutional basis and being done in the right way. And if it's not being done in the right way, how do you feel about that? Of course. But part of the reason why I like this questioning is the more constitutional you want to make it, the more precise you want to make it, the more you're going to need my product. So you keep pushing on making a constitutional.

13:48I'm totally supportive of that. You know, a constitutional, you would need to understand where the things are going, how are they going, under what conditions, where do they belong. But I'm asking you just as a person, on a sort of a moral basis, as a human, when you see young people, mothers and fathers and families getting ripped apart with the masks on, with the ICE folks, what do you think of that? Of course, but at this point you're abusing empathy because I of course don't like that. No one likes that. No American, this is the fairest, least bigoted, most open-minded culture in the world.

14:24Okay. But if you don't like it, you say, hey government, you're going to let me finish? Please. Okay. So in this country, you have 1 % of the country in prison, 1 % who were in prison and therefore have no rights. Do you know what happens to you when you go to prison? They take you away from your kids. You know who that happens to? Disproportionately working class, disproportionately black and Hispanic men and white men in the underclass. Where are the thousands of articles about them? Nobody cares, and they don't care because it does not either serve the ability, the desire to force me to vote for one party, which basically takes away all my power.

15:05That's affectionately what it does. If I agree to say this is the worst thing in the world, I essentially have given up my vote. My vote is not for you. My vote is for these two issues. The second reason they don't care is because somehow no one has empathy with any of those people because none of us really deal with those people. At Palantir, we are on the side of working class Americans. We support people who go to the military. We save their lives. We bring them home safer. Our AI actually makes workers more wealthy, more valuable. And the 10 to 15 million people that love me despite what's written, half of them made a lot of money on us.

15:41And you know what they're like? They're like people like me who think, you know what, we have to do better. Of course we have to do better. What do you say to this then? Take me out of it. Take the media out of it. There's a group of 13 former Palantir employees who wrote an open letter to you. And they stated, quote, that Palantir's leadership has abandoned its founding ideals? We have 5 ,000 ex-Palantirians and 4 ,000 current Palantirians. And by the way, we encourage a culture of disagreement, which you know exists. Anyone can come visit us. You'll find half the people disagreeing with me, at least on any issue.

16:16But I just want to say, we have 5 ,000 ex-Palantirians. You have 13, half of whom were like in the humanities department of Palantir, which is a little bit like being in the printing press part of New York Times. a very important part, but no one's really listening to your opinion. So it's like, it's, yeah. You know, if you have an organization, I'll tell you what. A lot of Palantirians, Palantirians are mostly uncomfortable. Most Palantirians are like you. Okay, I don't know who you are because, of course, you're an objective journalist. But they broadly are okay with, they like the work we do in Ukraine.

16:50By the way, could Europeans finally stick up for us since we're basically between us and Russia? but they're very proud of that in general although that's also very controversial in non-elite circles that's important to remember they're pretty okay with Israel stuff especially since a lot of the BS written about us on the right primarily not primarily on the left that somehow we're doing facial recognition stuff and we're building a database any technical person knows that's BS by the way if you've heard that and you believe that listen to the person who told you that do 10 minutes of research and you'll see who has credibility for you in the future to that directly though, because people talk about surveillance, they immediately say surveillance, Palantir, that you are helping the U.S.

17:31government in a massive surveillance program, given the amount of data that's coming in from all sorts of different agencies now. First thing before I will absolutely get to that, the biggest misconception about Palantir is none of this. Palantir is an absolute dominant juggernaut in U.S. commercial and AI. Our revenue grew 121%, the most important metric in enterprise software. We have the highest number ever recorded. It's well over 2x any number that would be highly respectable. So we're like the Michael Jordan on the numbers in U.S. commercial. And that really pisses a lot of people off. That's true.

18:05Most of our money, 75 % of our revenue comes from America. That's going 77%. And most of our market cap comes from that. So, like, we are just crushing it in the most meritocratic environment in the world, U.S. commercial. Okay, so the surveillance stuff, you know, there's the Pallianish version of this, which, you know, which is like our product can never be abused. What is true is that we are highly ethical, but don't believe us on that. We are not, obviously, not building a database. We're not, I mean, the most absurd one is we built a database in Israel, we're bringing here. Okay, that is complete nuts.

18:38First of all, we are in this country from the very beginning, and second of all, you don't need us to build a database. That's like, oh, I'm like, I have a ruler and a pencil so I can do math. Oh, I got a calculator. So that's like you're selling your people corn syrup, cornflakes or something. Okay, so you get to the big issue. Are we building a database that can be used for surveillance? No. Okay, but the more subtle version is if you're legally surveilled, we don't even really work heavily with the FBI or DOJ. Could you put it in our product? Yes. Are our enemies surveilled using data that goes in our product?

19:11100 % and I completely support that. The most interesting thing about the lie that we are doing this is not that our product couldn't be abused. Any workable technology that's ever been built has been abused. Electricity has been abused. Gasoline engines have been abused. But our product is the single hardest product in the world to abuse because every single step that you take is absolutely transparent. So if you want to use our product to abuse human rights, you've created a record of you doing it. I can tell you, and this is the part where you can get into the low trust environment, and you don't have to believe me, the environments that abuse data in this world, mostly SIGINT, meaning from satellites, have never liked our product.

19:53And we were the first place to act, we were the first, and to my knowledge, only company that said we're not going to work in Russia, we're not going to work in China, and by the way, on the issue everyone would think, because they somehow think I'm like only care about, we were the first company to say we would not build a Muslim database, and we ended contracts in this country with institutions that were essentially there to surveil Muslim Americans. And the primary reason for these attacks is, on the far left, people are like, they do not like us because we stand for meritocracy. We hire and promote independent of all variables.

20:28We stand for the rule of law. We stand for competence. and we call out the complete bullshit that there's... On the far right, they don't like us because they think I'm somehow a Jewish conspiracy because two of the four or five co-founders are Jewish. They're like, okay, great. You know, a lot of Jews are successful. It's not all conspiracy. It is a fact. Those are just the facts. And I'm a little bit pissed at the New York Times, honestly. And the main reason is I believe, if you're listening, I believe in your mission. When you write a technically completely illiterate article, you lose a lot of credibility with people who are technical.

21:07And that's just a fact. That article about us being a surveillance thing is like where it's all implied what we do. Yeah, but the problem is you lose credibility with anyone who goes on the thing. And that's damaging for our democracy. Let me ask you this question, though. Is there a red line for you? Meaning if you saw your software being used in a way that you genuinely believed was unconstitutional or illegal, Are there conversations you ever have, back channel or otherwise, where you say, guys, this is not cool, we're not doing this? You know, there's a term that was unfortunately coined called constructive engagement.

21:44First of all, again, we did not sell our product to cigarette manufacturers that wanted to sell their cigarettes to poor black neighborhoods. We pulled our product from law enforcement institutions that were purely doing profiling. In certain countries in Latin America, racial profiling is just part of how they do credit scores. We could have made a lot of money on that. We refused to do it. We've said no to many countries across the world. We said no to China. We didn't say no, but we didn't work in adversarial countries. So there's always have you done this, I think, is the most important. And we did this at points where it was critical and we were in desperate times financially.

22:25So we did this when it absolutely could have crushed our country, our company. So the obvious answer is yes. Then there's the more subtle answer. All these countries and people I defend in public, like Israel is a perfect example. I think most of the critiques of Israel, not all, not all, but a lot of people just have like Israel derangement or Jewish derangement syndrome. It's like they're like hobbyists. It's like they think about Jews all day. It's like, I don't know. I grew up in the Jewish community. How often do you think about Jews? I don't think about Jews very often. So it's like, hey, of course I'm going to defend in a way publicly that I can assure you privately people have less present conversations than the one we're having.

23:04Like I told the Israeli government from the beginning, maximum violence to the people organizing violence, minimal violence to the people on the front end. I told every single person. Do you think that they lived up to that? We're going to talk to Prime Minister Netanyahu this afternoon. You know, I could tell you, I feel that if, somewhat ill-modestly, if people listen to me more actively in Germany on migration, on Israel on these issues, and on lots of other things, we'd have a better world, or primarily my democratic party. You know, it's like, do we really have to pretend that it's immoral to have a border?

23:39In other words, you don't think that they have done it as well as they should? You know, well, I'll put it this way. In a world where people didn't have so much derangement syndrome, I would be a lot more critical. In this world, I think you have to compare them to what the confidence level of any other country. And you say, yeah, these things are very hard and brutal and watching these things happen is very difficult. But, you know, yeah, it's a very hard world because in the end, we are in a world where there really aren't high integrity partners on any side of the debate. So the minute you admit that in public that someone is wrong, you're really just serving somebody who has no interest in advancing the debate at all.

24:18They have an interest in their party winning. That's not my interest. My version is we advance America as the superior country in the world and we remove a lot of the dysfunction by argument, by persuading people, which I'm notoriously bad at. Palantir, we believe we're notoriously good at being right. Alex, you founded this company with... Not at persuading people we're right. We leave that to the New York Times. You co-founded this company with Peter Thiel. And for a long time, there was a view that Peter, who's been on this stage many times, was the conservative and you were the progressive, and that that served the interests, actually, of the company in a certain way because you were effectively bipartisan.