Campaign is launched opposing what many regard as Palantir’s “Supervillain” Manifesto following Palantir co-founder/CEO Alex Karp published a 22-point ideological manifesto on X derived from his book The Technological Republic.
By Cicero
- Concerns among campaigners centre largely on Palantir’s links to US immigration enforcement operations and military partnerships abroad.
More than 200,000 people have signed petitions urging the British government to reconsider its relationship with the American technology firm , amid mounting criticism over the company’s expanding role across the NHS, policing, defence and local government.
The growing backlash follows renewed scrutiny of Palantir’s operations in Britain and a controversial policy manifesto published by the company in the United States, which critics have accused of promoting an aggressive vision of state power and surveillance. One Labour MP reportedly dismissed the document as resembling the “ramblings of a supervillain”, a phrase that has since spread widely across social media and campaign circles.
Two separate petitions have now gathered a combined total of approximately 229,000 signatures. One calls for ministers to terminate all public sector contracts involving Palantir, while another specifically urges Health Secretary to cancel the company’s £330 million NHS patient data agreement.
Concerns among campaigners centre largely on Palantir’s links to US immigration enforcement operations and military partnerships abroad. Critics have repeatedly pointed to the company’s technology being used by American Immigration and Customs Enforcement, commonly known as ICE, as well as by Israeli defence forces.
The controversy intensified further this week after reports emerged that the was exploring the possible use of Palantir’s artificial intelligence systems to assist with analysing sensitive intelligence and criminal investigation data. Should such discussions progress into a formal agreement, it would represent a significant expansion of the company’s footprint within British law enforcement.
Campaign group 38 Degrees, which helped promote the petitions, said public concern had reached unprecedented levels.
Matthew McGregor, the organisation’s chief executive, argued that hundreds of thousands of people were deeply uncomfortable with a company connected to overseas military and immigration operations being entrusted with highly sensitive public data in Britain. Referring to Palantir’s recently published manifesto, which argued that democratic societies require “hard power” in order to prevail, he urged ministers to consider activating contractual break clauses.
Palantir’s involvement with British public bodies has expanded rapidly in recent years. The company is estimated to hold contracts worth around £600 million across the UK public sector, including agreements with the Ministry of Defence, local authorities and police forces. Its defence-related work reportedly includes a £240 million Ministry of Defence contract, while partnerships with forces including Bedfordshire and Leicestershire police remain in place. Coventry City Council also recently renewed its own arrangement with the company.
As criticism has intensified, senior Palantir figures have increasingly entered the public debate directly.
The company’s UK chief executive, Louis Mosley, has responded forcefully to critics online, at times using humour and internet memes as part of an unusually combative public relations campaign. Social media exchanges between Mosley and several prominent campaigners have transformed the dispute into an increasingly visible political and cultural clash over the future role of large technology companies within British public services.
Legal campaigner recently launched a podcast investigation examining Palantir’s growing influence in Britain, describing it as a story involving “an antichrist-obsessed billionaire” and a company named after the all-seeing stones featured in .
Mosley dismissed many of the allegations circulating online and accused some critics of promoting conspiratorial narratives. He also publicly challenged comments made by , deputy leader of the , after Polanski inaccurately described Palantir co-founder as the company’s current chief executive and referred to Palantir as a “spyware” company.
Mosley responded by arguing that the term “spyware” referred to illegal malicious software and said the description was technically defamatory, although he added that the company had no intention of pursuing legal action.
Despite the dispute over language, opposition to the contracts continues to grow among several political parties and campaign organisations. The have also called for the NHS agreement to be scrapped and for further contracts involving the company to be paused pending greater scrutiny.
Supporters of Palantir, however, insist the criticism ignores the practical benefits its systems provide. The company argues its software has helped hospitals increase surgical capacity, accelerated cancer diagnosis times and improved logistical planning within the armed forces. It has also claimed its technology has supported efforts to protect victims of domestic abuse through improved data coordination between agencies.
The debate surrounding Palantir increasingly reflects a broader political question facing governments across the Western world: how far public institutions should rely on powerful private technology firms to manage sensitive state functions, and where the balance should lie between efficiency, security and civil liberty.
As pressure grows on ministers, the controversy shows little sign of fading quietly.
