Av Habil Kantur 
In the quiet corridors of European ministries and the bustling operations centers of national police forces, a digital transformation is underway. It is powered by Palantir Technologies, a secretive and immensely powerful American data analytics firm born from the nexus of Silicon Valley innovation and CIA seed money [2, 15]. With its sophisticated platforms, Gotham and Foundry, Palantir promises to solve the most complex problems of governance, from healthcare logistics and counter-terrorism to crime prevention [11, 20]. Its name, a nod to the “all-seeing stones” of J.R.R. Tolkien’s lore, is a candid admission of its ambition, to see and connect everything [2, 3]. As European governments ink ever-larger contracts with this surveillance behemoth, a growing chorus of lawmakers, civil liberties organizations, and human rights advocates are sounding the alarm [9, 30]. They argue that Europe, in its quest for security and efficiency, is inadvertently importing a technology of control that poses a grave and fundamental threat to its most cherished values: democracy, privacy, and the rule of law.
This is not a theoretical debate. Palantir’s expansion across the continent is rapid and relentless, embedding its proprietary systems deep within the critical infrastructure of nations [14]. The company’s technology facilitates unprecedented forms of data aggregation, its corporate ideology is openly hostile to democratic norms [9], and its direct involvement in the devastating conflict in Gaza, where it provides targeting technology to the Israeli military amid allegations of genocide, raises profound ethical questions [1, 40]. For European decision-makers, the Palantir problem is no longer a peripheral concern. It is a defining challenge that forces a confrontation with the true cost of outsourced security and digital dependency, asking whether the continent is willing to trade the foundations of its open societies for the promise of an all-seeing eye.
Palantir’s foray into Europe has been a story of strategic, and often quiet, infiltration. The company has secured hundreds of millions of euros in contracts with governments and agencies, making significant inroads into defense, intelligence, law enforcement, and even public health sectors [14, 17]. While the full extent of its operations remains shrouded in commercial confidentiality and national security classifications, a clear pattern of deep integration into the state apparatus is visible across the continent.
The United Kingdom stands out as one of Palantir’s largest and most lucrative markets [16]. The company’s most prominent and controversial contract is with the National Health Service (NHS). In November 2023, a Palantir-led consortium was awarded a staggering £330 million contract to build the Federated Data Platform (FDP), a system designed to connect and analyze data from up to 240 NHS organizations, including sensitive patient records, waiting lists, and staff data [16, 41]. This engagement began with an emergency £1 contract during the COVID-19 pandemic, which quickly spiraled into multi-million-pound extensions awarded without competitive tender [16, 34]. Beyond healthcare, Palantir has cemented its role within the UK’s security state. The Ministry of Defence has entered into a “Strategic Partnership” potentially worth up to £750 million, with a subsequent £240.6 million Enterprise Agreement awarded without competition to embed Palantir’s software across strategic and operational decision-making [16]. These documented contracts, alongside deals with police forces and a nuclear weapons facility, push Palantir’s known UK earnings towards £1 billion, a figure that is likely a conservative estimate due to redacted agreements [1, 16].
In Germany, Palantir’s advance has met with significant resistance, creating a stark case study in the clash between surveillance technology and constitutional rights [17]. State police forces in Hesse and North Rhine-Westphalia adopted Palantir’s Gotham platform for crime investigation [3, 17]. However, in a landmark decision in February 2023, Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the police use of this automated data analysis software was unconstitutional [16]. The court found that it violated the fundamental right to “informational self-determination,” effectively nullifying the legal basis for its use in Hamburg and forcing Hesse to rewrite its laws [16]. Despite this judicial rebuke, political pressure to retain Palantir’s capabilities persists [16]. In a separate but related development, the German military (Bundeswehr) has decided against awarding new contracts to Palantir, explicitly citing the need for “digital sovereignty” and a preference for domestic or European solutions to maintain control over sensitive defense data [8, 27]. This rejection from Europe’s largest economy underscores a growing anxiety about strategic dependency on a US provider.
Elsewhere, Palantir’s roots run deep. France’s domestic intelligence agency, the DGSI, has been a client since 2016, recently renewing its multi-year contract in December 2025 to utilize Palantir’s platform for national security operations, including during major events like the 2024 Olympic Games [28]. In the Netherlands, government use of Palantir’s software dates back to 2011, a fact that only became public through open government requests that were met with heavy redactions and delays [16, 32, 35]. The Dutch Ministry of Defence uses Palantir in its Special Operations Command and is implementing the company’s AI-driven Maven Smart System [35]. In Denmark, the national police have been using a custom version of Gotham, known as POL-INTEL, since 2017 [17, 37]. To facilitate this predictive policing project, the Danish government passed a special “Palantir-bill” specifically designed to allow the system to bypass certain privacy protections and GDPR provisions, creating a legal carve-out for mass data processing [18, 38].
The continental pushback, however, is not isolated to Germany. Switzerland, after a comprehensive seven-year evaluation by its military and other federal agencies, formally rejected Palantir’s products [16]. A risk assessment concluded that data held by Palantir could be accessed by the American government under the US CLOUD Act and that data leaks “cannot be technically prevented” [16]. The Swiss government is now actively pursuing domestic and European alternatives to ensure what it calls “absolute autonomy” [16]. This divergence, between nations like the UK and France that are doubling down on their partnerships and those like Germany and Switzerland that are pulling back, highlights the critical crossroads at which Europe finds itself.
At the heart of Palantir’s power and the controversy surrounding it are its two primary software platforms: Gotham and Foundry. Though marketed for different sectors— Gotham for government intelligence and military operations, Foundry for commercial and civilian data analysis—they share a common technological DNA [4, 52]. Both are engineered to solve the same fundamental problem: how to integrate, analyze, and extract actionable insights from vast, chaotic, and disconnected pools of data [11]. Palantir’s CEO, Alex Karp, has openly acknowledged their power, admitting the company’s tools are sometimes used “to kill people” [3, 5].
Palantir Gotham is the company’s flagship product, an intelligence platform designed for the complex world of national security, defense, and law enforcement [11, 54]. Its core capability is data fusion. Gotham can ingest and integrate massive quantities of both structured data (like spreadsheets and databases) and unstructured data (like text documents, emails, social media chatter, and satellite imagery) [11, 52]. It transforms this morass of information into a single, coherent interface where analysts can visualize and traverse complex webs of relationships [3]. Gotham is built to uncover hidden networks, track targets, and identify threats [11]. It is, in effect, an operating system for surveillance, allowing an analyst to map connections between people, places, things, and events across datasets that were previously siloed and inaccessible [3, 54].
Palantir Foundry is presented as the civilian-facing counterpart to Gotham, an “operating system for the modern enterprise” used by corporations like Airbus to optimize manufacturing and public institutions like the UK’s NHS to manage healthcare data [11]. While its use cases are framed in the language of business efficiency and public service delivery, its underlying architecture is fundamentally similar to Gotham’s [4]. Foundry centralizes and cleans disparate data sources—from patient health records to supply chain logs—and creates a unified “ontology,” a shared language that allows the data to be analyzed as a whole [11]. It enables users to build machine learning models and AI applications to generate insights and predictions [11]. Critics, however, are wary of this distinction. They point out that the shared architecture and “DNA” between the militaristic Gotham and the civilian Foundry present a serious governance problem, suggesting that the logic of totalizing data integration developed for the battlefield is now being applied to the management of public life [4].
A key and highly controversial application of this technology is predictive policing. By analyzing historical crime data, social media connections, vehicle registrations, and other information, Palantir’s systems are used to forecast where crimes might occur or even who might commit them [15]. This capability has been deployed in cities like New Orleans and Los Angeles [15]. The platform generates lists of “likely” offenders or designates “chronic offenders,” creating risk scores that can direct police patrols and focus surveillance resources [15, 53]. For law enforcement agencies struggling with limited resources, this promise of data-driven efficiency is seductive. Yet it is precisely this predictive capacity that transforms Palantir’s platforms from passive analytical tools into active instruments of social control, capable of shaping reality based on algorithmic forecasts [23].
The proliferation of Palantir’s technology across European state functions is not merely a technical upgrade; it represents a profound challenge to the foundational principles of democratic society. By enabling mass surveillance, normalizing algorithmic decision-making, and eroding legal safeguards, these systems threaten to hollow out civil liberties from within, creating a society that is more watched, more predicted, and less free.
The most immediate impact of pervasive surveillance is the chilling effect on freedom of expression and association. In a democracy, the ability to protest, to criticize the government, to organize politically, and even to hold private conversations without fear of monitoring is essential [42, 48]. The mere knowledge that state agencies can use Palantir’s tools to connect social media activity, location data, and communication records creates a powerful disincentive for dissent. Individuals may selfcensor, avoiding controversial topics or refraining from joining protests, fearing that their digital footprint could be misinterpreted and used against them [42]. This subtle suppression of speech and assembly erodes the vibrant public sphere that is the lifeblood of a healthy democracy. Civil society organizations like European Digital Rights (EDRi) have warned that such biometric and data-driven mass surveillance obliterates anonymity and treats everyone as a potential suspect, fundamentally undermining the presumption of innocence [51].
Furthermore, Palantir’s predictive policing tools are a vehicle for entrenching and automating discrimination. Critics and academic studies have shown that algorithms trained on historical police data, which often reflects existing societal biases, will inevitably reproduce and amplify those biases [15, 22]. If a minority neighborhood has been historically over-policed, the data will show a higher rate of arrests in that area. A predictive algorithm will then designate that neighborhood as a “hot spot,” leading to even greater police presence and more arrests, creating a discriminatory feedback loop [15]. This is not a hypothetical risk; in Los Angeles, Palantir’s software wasfoundto havedisproportionately targeted minority neighborhoods [15]. This “deportation by algorithm,” as Amnesty International has described its use in US immigration enforcement, codifies past injustices into a seemingly objective technological system, undermining the goal of equal justice under the law [9, 15]. The German Constitutional Court’s ruling against Palantir’s use by the Hesse police was a direct acknowledgement of this danger, affirming that such automated analysis poses an unacceptable risk to fundamental rights [16].
The very nature of Palantir’s platforms also corrodes the rule of law by undermining transparency and accountability. The company’s algorithms are proprietary and operate as a “black box,” meaning that their internal logic is inscrutable to the public, to defense lawyers, and often even to the government officials using them [15, 23, 53]. When a decision affecting an individual’s liberty is made or influenced by an algorithmic score, the inability to interrogate that process violates the principles of due process [23]. How can a person challenge their inclusion on a “chronic offender” list if the reasons are locked inside a secret algorithm? This opacity subverts democratic oversight. In Denmark, the government went so far as to pass a “Palantir-bill” to create a legal shield for its surveillance system, a move that demonstrates how pow4erful technology can compel governments to weaken, rather than strengthen, legal protections [18, 38].
Finally, the increasing reliance on Palantir creates a critical vulnerability for European nations: the loss of digital sovereignty. By outsourcing critical data infrastructure for defense, intelligence, and healthcare to a single American company, European states risk becoming locked into a dependent relationship [12, 17]. This “vendor lock-in” limits their ability to switch to alternative solutions and ties their national security to the commercial interests and political allegiances of a foreign corporation [16, 23]. This concern is powerfully amplified by the existence of the US CLOUD Act, a law that empowers US authorities to demand data from American tech companies, regardless of where that data is stored [16]. This puts Palantor in direct conflict with Europe’s own GDPR, creating a situation where legal protections for European citizens’ data can be overridden by US law [16]. The rejections of Palantir by both the German military and the Swiss government were explicitly motivated by this desire to maintain sovereign control over their most sensitive data and digital infrastructure [8, 16].
A technology is never neutral; it is shaped by the worldview of its creators. In the case of Palantir, the ideology of its founders and leadership is a matter of public record, and it represents a profound departure from the liberal democratic values that underpin the Europeanproject. Understanding this ideology is not an adhominem attack, it is a necessary act of due diligence for any government considering entrusting its citizens’ most sensitive data to the company.
The company’s co-founder and most prominent backer is Peter Thiel, a billionaire venture capitalist known for his contrarian and often anti-democratic political stances. Thiel has famously written that he “no longer believe[s] that freedom and democracy are compatible” a statement that stands in stark opposition to the foundational tenets of modern Western governance [9, 41]. His financial support for right-wing populist movements and his role in the Trump administration signal a political agenda that many in Europe would find deeply troubling [35]. Another co-founder, Joe Lonsdale, has stated that Palantir was founded in part to “eliminate communists,” reflecting a Cold War mentality of tracking and suppressing “undesirable populations” that sits uneasily with contemporary notions of civil rights [35].
The company’s CEO, Alex Karp, cultivates an image as an eccentric philosopher-king, but his public statements betray a worldview that prioritizes American power and technological dominance above all else. He dismisses public fears of government surveillance as largely misplaced, arguing that for-profit companies are the real monitors of daily life [46, 47]. He frames the development of AI and its integration into state functions as an existential race against China, arguing that “you will have far fewer rights if America’s not in the lead” [44]. This narrative presents a false choice: accept a surveillance state built by American companies or surrender to a future dictated by authoritarian rivals. In a manifesto published by the company, Karp extolled US power and advocated for AI state surveillance, leading UK Members of Parliament to describe the document as “the ramblings of a supervillain” and the “parody of a RoboCop film” [39].
These are not merely the edgy pronouncements of tech executives, they are the guiding philosophy of a corporation that builds the tools of modern statecraft. For a company whose ethos seems to view democratic processes as inefficient obstacles and civil liberties as secondary to the pursuit of security and national power, to be handed the keys to a nation’s data is a profound risk. This ideological dissonance was highlighted by former EU lawmaker Sophie in ’t Veld, who warned that Palantir’s close alignment with the US government and secret services makes European countries vulnerable [9]. Critics like Francesca Bria, an Italian economist, have gone further, viewing the company as an “arm of the US national security state” and warning that Europe’s reliance on its technology constitutes a surrender of sovereignty [9]. The question for European leaders is simple: is a company founded on such principles a suitable partner for governing open, democratic societies?
Beyond the threats to domestic civil liberties, Palantir’s activities on the international stage have plunged the company into a deep ethical crisis, one that directly implicates its European government partners. The company has a long-standing relationship with the Israeli military and intelligence agencies, but this partnership dramatically intensified following the attacks of October 7, 2023 [7]. In January 2024, Palantir and the Israeli Ministry of Defense announced a “strategic partnership” to supply advanced technology for Israel’s war efforts [45].
This is not a passive arrangement. Palantir is providing its core products, including its Artificial Intelligence Platform (AIP), Gotham, and Foundry, for active military operations [7]. These platforms are used to integrate intelligence reports, drone footage and other data streams to identify and analyze targets [5, 7]. Palantir’s technology provides advanced targeting capabilities that, according to human rights organizations, have been used in operations in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon [7, 31]. CEO Alex Karphaspublicly and repeatedly expressed pride in this support, stating, “I am proud that we are supporting Israel in every way we can” [2, 7]. Employee dissent over this work has been dismissed, and the company has held board meetings in Tel Aviv to solidify its commitment [7].
This partnership is occurring in the context of a conflict that has led to widespread international condemnation and formal allegations of genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice. Human rights researchers and senior United Nations officials have raised urgent concerns about Palantir’s role [1, 40]. Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, concluded there are “reasonable grounds” to believe Palantir’s AI platform has been used in Israel’s “unlawful use of force,” directly contributing to the disproportionate loss of civilian life in Gaza [40]. She has called on the company to prevent the misuse of its technology or withdraw completely to avoid legal liability for complicity in war crimes [40].
Organizations like the American Friends Service Committee categorize Palantir as a “militarized high-tech data analytics firm that enables Israeli war crimes” [7]. The ethical and reputational fallout is already materializing. In October 2024, Norway’s 6largest asset manager, Storebrand, divested its holdings in Palantir, citing concerns that the company’s work for Israel risked violating international humanitarian law [7, 19].
For EU member states and the UK, which purport to uphold international law and human rights, this presents an untenable moral contradiction. By contracting with Palantir for domestic services like healthcare and policing, they are financially and reputationally tethered to a company that is a key technological partner in a conflict marked by devastating civilian casualties and credible accusations of the gravest crimes under international law. They are, in effect, helping to fund and legitimize a corporation whose tools are being deployed in a manner that starkly contradicts Europe’s stated commitments. This complicity, however indirect, stains the hands of any government that continues to do business with Palantir without a full and public accounting of its role in the Gaza conflict.
The evidence is overwhelming and the conclusion is stark. Palantir Technologies, through its powerful surveillance platforms, its anti-democratic corporate ethos, and its ethically calamitous role in international conflicts, represents a clear and present danger to thefuture of democracyandcivil liberties in Europe. Its technology creates a permanent infrastructure for mass surveillance that chills free expression [42], its predictive algorithms automate discrimination and undermine the rule of law [15, 22], and its proprietary nature fosters a crippling dependency that erodes the digital sovereignty of nations [16].
The warnings issued by Privacy International, Amnesty International, and dozens of other civil liberties groups are not hypothetical [9, 56]. They are validated by the German Constitutional Court’s decisive protection of informational self-determination and echoed in the Swiss government’s prudent decision to seek sovereign alternatives [16]. These acts of resistance provide a clear playbook for other European nations. The seduction of technological solutions to complex social problems is strong, but the price of accepting Palantir’s offer is too high. The promise of security and efficiency cannot be paid for with the soul of an open society.
But the answer to the Palantir problem is not merely to build a European version of the same surveillance apparatus. The answer is to reject the premise entirely. To preserve democratic rights in any meaningful sense, there should be no mass surveillance of the population at all, not by an American company, not by a European one, not by any state that claims to govern by the consent of its people. The right to privacy, to free thought, to association without suspicion, is not a luxury to be traded away in the name of security; it is the non-negotiable foundation upon which every other democratic freedom rests. The moment a government begins treating its entire citizenry as a dataset to be mined for threats, it has already crossed the line from democratic governance into authoritarian control, regardless of the flag on the server.
Moreover, the security justification that drives this surveillance, the everpresent specter of “counterterrorism”, deserves far more scrutiny than it typically receives. If Western governments were to honestly reckon with the consequences of decades of military interventions, regime-change operations, and geopolitical med7dling in the affairs of nations across the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa, and Latin America, they would find that much of the terrorism they now seek to surveil away is itself a product of their own foreign policy. The cycle is as self-serving as it is destructive: destabilize a region, create the conditions for radicalization, then use the resulting threat to justify an ever-expanding security state at home.
Break that cycle, commit to genuine non-interference and diplomacy rather than domination and the rationale for tools like Palantir’s collapses. The future does not belong to states that build the most sophisticated digital panopticons. It belongs to those with the wisdom to pursue cooperation, mutual respect, and the construction of a better, shared future with like-minded nations. Investing in diplomatic partnerships, multilateral institutions, equitable trade, and collective solutions to shared challenges like climate change, poverty, and public health is not naive idealism, it is the only viable strategy for long-term security and prosperity. This cooperative vision, not the all-seeing eye of a surveillance contractor, is the true path forward for humanity. European leaders must have the courage to choose it.
1. Blood tech: The UK ambassador, the sex offender, Palantir and Gaza- Al Jazeera
2. What is Palantir? And why is this corporation so dangerous? | American Friends Service Committee- afsc.org
3. All roads lead to Palantir: A review of how the data analytics company- privacyinternational.org
4. ‘Potential security risk’: Unpacking the UK’s trust issues with Palantir | Health News | Al Jazeera- aljazeera.com
5. How US Intelligence and an American Company Feed Israel’s Killing Machine in Gaza | The Nation- thenation.com
6. The Israeli military and tech industry collaborate on user-friendly software tools that automate war and occupation- documentjournal.com
7. Palantir Technologies Inc | AFSC Investigate- investigate.afsc.org
8. German Military Rejects Palantir Contracts Amid European Sovereignty Concerns | AlphaPilot- alphapilot.tech
9. European funders bet big on tech giant Palantir despite concerns over human rights and democracy- Follow the Money- Platform for investigative journalism- ftm.eu
10. Palantir CEO defends surveillance tech as US government contracts boost sales- Reuters
11. WhatDoesPalantir Actually Do? Gotham, Foundry, Apollo Explained | Financhle- financhle.com
12. Palantir is not our friend- about:intel- aboutintel.eu
13. Purge Palantir- afsc.org
14. Palantir is well on its way to conquering Europe– EURACTIV.com– euractiv.com
15. Palantir’s all-seeing eye: Domestic surveillance and the price of security- setav.org
16. Palantir UK Contracts, Data Sovereignty Risk 2026- thesmallbusinesscybersecurityguy.co.uk
17. Grokinsummary: Europe’sdependencyonPalantir&Co.-p4sc4l.substack.com
18. r/PLTR on Reddit: Danish police and intelligence service’s deep involvment with Palantir- reddit.com
19. Thiel’s Palantir dumped by Norwegian investor over work for Israel- Reuters
20. Palantir Technologies- en.wikipedia.org
21. Palantir CEO says Berlin’s distrust of battlefield software is misplacedpolitico.eu
22. (PDF) Palantir’s Predictive Policing Technology: A Case of algorithmic Bias and Lack of Transparency- researchgate.net
23. r/antiai on Reddit: Palantir Technologies: A Comprehensive Analysis of AIPowered Surveillance, Governance, and Ethical Implications in the 21st Century- reddit.com
24. Palantir Technologies Inc. (PLTR)- caat.org.uk
25. Palantir secures quiet contract win with big implications- TheStreet
26. Palantir response to the allegations over its complicity in war crimes amid Israel’s war in Gaza- business-humanrights.org
27. Palantir faces investor exodus and German military rejection as narrative cracks- thenextweb.com
28. Palantir Announces Renewal of Multi-Year Contract with the DGSI- Palantir
29. National case studies- Cupp research- cuppresearch.info
30. Sign the petition to stop Palantir in Europe- WeMove Europe
31. Palantir allegedly supplying Israel with AI tools amid Israel’s war in Gaza, raising concerns over war crimes- business-humanrights.org
32. r/nederlands on Reddit: Nederland maakt sinds 2011 (Rutte 1) gebruik van Palantir (spionagesoftware). Kabinet weigert tot op heden alle transparantiereddit.com
33. Palantir & Starlink allegedly complicit in war crimes amid Israel’s war on Gaza- business-humanrights.org
34. Palantir is well on its way to conquering Europe- reddit.com
35. WhatistheDutchgovernmenthiding about Palantir?- eliasrutten.substack.com
36. Parliamentary question | Use of Palantir by EU agencies | E-10-2026-001361 | European Parliament- europarl.europa.eu
37. Full article: A world of Palantir– ontological politics in the Danish police’s POLINTEL- tandfonline.com
38. New legal framework for predictive policing in Denmark- European Digital Rights (EDRi)- edri.org
39. Palantir manifesto described as ‘ramblings of a supervillain’ amid UK contract fears | Palantir | The Guardian- theguardian.com
40. Palantir, seemingly everywhere all at once, is accused of abuses in Gaza, among other fronts.- PassBlue
41. Briefing: Concerns Regarding Palantir Technologies and NHS Data SystemsMedact- medact.org
42. Whatdoesmasssurveillancedotohumanrights? |openDemocracy-opendemocracy.net
43. Palantir Was Used to Spy on the U.S. and Its Allies, Leaked Documents Show – The Intercept
44. Palantir CEO says a surveillance state is preferable to China winning the AI race- Gizmodo
45. Thiel’s Palantir, Israel Agree Strategic Partnership for Battle Tech- Palantir
46. Palantir CEO on ICE, selling to U.S. adversaries, and more | Axios on HBOyoutube.com
47. Palantir CEO to critics: ‘Don’t invest’- Axios
48. Human rights in Europe should not buckle under mass surveillance- Council of Europe
49. Constitutionalizing Mass Surveillance in the EU: Civil Society Demands, Judicial Activism, and Legislative Inertia- cambridge.org
50. Democratic action has power to protect EU democracy from biometric mass surveillance- citizens-initiative-forum.europa.eu
51. Biometric Mass Surveillance, Civic Space and Democracy: why and how civil society should mobilise- civitates-eu.org
52. Palantir Competitors: Understanding Alternatives to Gotham and Foundrydatawalk.com
53. Predictive Policing Ethics Under Palantir Scrutiny- AI CERTs News- aicerts.ai
54. PalantirPlatform: Gotham-DigitalMarketplace-applytosupply.digitalmarketplace.service.gov.uk
55. Palantir | Privacy International- privacyinternational.org
56. All roads lead to Palantir | Privacy International- privacyinternational.org
57. Press release: 10 questions to Palantir from privacy organisations | Privacy International- privacyinternational.org
58. Palantir Privacy and Security Statement- palantir.com