Palantir, the US data analytics and surveillance technology company, published a 22-point manifesto on X over the weekend declaring that some cultures are “dysfunctional and regressive,” calling for the reinstatement of a military draft, and predicting that autonomous AI weapons are inevitable. The post triggered swift condemnation from British MPs, who called it everything from a RoboCop parody to the output of a supervillain — and demanded the UK government terminate its more than £500 million portfolio of active Palantir contracts.
What the manifesto said
The post, which appears to reprise themes from Palantir CEO Alex Karp’s 2025 book The Technological Republic, framed the document as a defence of Western hard power. It called for an end to what it described as the “postwar neutering” of Germany and Japan, argued that democratic societies require military strength to survive, and insisted that the development of AI weapons systems is a question of who builds them rather than whether they are built at all.
“The question is not whether AI weapons will be built; it is who will build them and for what purpose. Our adversaries will not pause to indulge in theatrical debates about the merits of developing technologies with critical military and national security applications. They will proceed.”
— Palantir, 22-point manifesto on X
The post also claimed that some cultures had “produced vital advances” while others “remain dysfunctional and regressive” — a line that drew particular criticism for its implications about cultural hierarchy.
UK reaction
The timing proved combustible in Britain, where Palantir holds a substantial and contested portfolio of government contracts. Several MPs from different parties publicly questioned whether a company with this ideological profile should have access to sensitive public data.
“Palantir’s manifesto, which embraces AI state surveillance of citizens along with national service in the USA, is either a parody of a RoboCop film, or a disturbing narcissistic rant from an arrogant organisation. Either way it shows that the company’s ethos is entirely unsuited to working on UK government projects involving citizens’ most sensitive private data.”
— Martin Wrigley, Liberal Democrat MP, Commons Science and Technology Committee
“Palantir’s ‘manifesto’ sounds like the ramblings of a supervillain. A company that has such naked ideological motivations and lack of respect for democratic rule of law should be nowhere near our public services.”
— Victoria Collins, Liberal Democrat MP
UK contracts at stake
Palantir’s UK footprint is substantial and spans the most sensitive areas of the public sector. Labour MP Rachael Maskell, a former NHS worker and longtime critic of the company’s health data role, said it was time for the government to understand “the culture and ideology of Palantir” and plan an exit from its contracts at the earliest opportunity.
Palantir’s response
A Palantir spokesperson pushed back on the criticism by pointing to the company’s operational record in the UK, citing improvements to NHS operations, faster cancer diagnosis times, support for Royal Navy vessel maintenance and domestic violence protection programmes. The spokesperson noted that 17 percent of Palantir’s global workforce is based in the UK — the highest proportion among the world’s 20 largest technology companies.
The manifesto is not Karp’s first foray into political commentary. In an interview with CNBC in March, he suggested AI would “disrupt” the political power of “highly educated, often female voters who vote mostly Democrat” and instead empower working-class male voters — remarks that generated significant controversy at the time.