The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

Tonight, we have somebody who is in the middle of two of the biggest news stories on Capitol Hill. One, because he's become the primary opponent of the so-called Big, Beautiful Bill that President Trump has been advocating and was also one of the leading, if not the leading Republican opponents of President Trump's terror proposals and I'm talking, of course, about Senator Rand Paul, the Republican from Kentucky who often defends President Trump, but also, just like his father, has very strong principles that they've held for many years, that they refuse to bend or break in order to appease anybody or placate anybody, including in this case, even President Donald Trump. 

As a result of Paul's opposition to Trump's bill that he's trying to get passed, Trump posted some very Trumpian tweets earlier today, attacking Rand Paul, saying he doesn't understand the bill, suggesting that he ought to be out of Congress. Very possible that two weeks from now, Paul will be a very vocal defender of something Trump cares about, and he'll post something saying Rand Paul is one of the greatest politicians Kentucky has ever had. But it's very Rand Paul type of politics, which I think is commendable, and we want to talk to him about not only the reasons that he's opposing this bill, the reason is pretty straightforward it massively increases the debt, which is something that Senator Paul believes is dangerous for the United States, but also how he sees his role, whether his loyalty is supposed to be to the president who just got elected with a broad mandate in the United States or whether it's the people of Kentucky or his own principles and what happens when those collide. 

We've covered a lot of other issues with him as well, including the neocon push for war in Iran and how that might affect both foreign policy, the budget, the overall foreign policy direction in the United States and whether under President Trump it really is signifying a break from prior administrations. 

We talked a lot about the war in Ukraine and then finally the free speech assault that has been underway for almost five months now, since the Trump administration began, in the name of protecting Israel. Senator Paul gave a very stirring defense to the First Amendment last month in opposition to a new bill called the Antisemitism Awareness Act that would have expanded the types of ideas about Israel that you are now prohibited from saying in colleges. 

As always, Senator Paul is a very good guest because he speaks his mind, you know that whatever he's saying whether you disagree or not, he believes in, and here is our interview with Senator Paul. Enjoy.

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

One of the central grievances among the American Right over the last decade, a grievance I have long shared, was the grave dangers posed by the secretive “Deep State,” as well as its accompanying system of mass surveillance aimed at the American population. What had long been a core concern of the American Left for decades previously gained space and credibility among many on the American Right for multiple reasons, including the obvious weaponization of those powers for political ends and the abuse of those powers particularly to target and undermine Donald Trump, his campaigns, his administrations and his movement. As a result, overthrowing this Deep State order and/or radically reforming it was one of the top two or three promises core to the MAGA movement. 

Several of Donald Trump's early picks to lead the agencies most responsible for these powers were longtime critics of these abuses and were thus promising signs to many of his seriousness in rooting out these abuses. People like Tulsi Gabbard to be the Director of National Intelligence and Kash Patel as FBI Director and Matt Gaetz as Attorney General were all so controversial in Washington precisely because they did not emerge from these agencies and were not expected to protect and perpetuate those agencies, but rather to cleanse and reform their worst, most long-standing abuses. 

But the focus on Trump's choices to lead these federal agencies has often obscured one vital fact about the Deep State and about the Surveillance State, which it has constructed. Much of the sinister work is carried out increasingly not by public agencies, but by privatized intelligence and military contractors who not only now develop and oversee the weapons used against the American people but profit greatly from doing so. 

This is not new. That was the model warned about, of course, by Dwight Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell address, where he notably referred not to the dangers of the Pentagon, but to the military-complex, precisely to emphasize the vital role that privatized and corporatized interests were playing in what should be government functions. That component of that formulation, the privatization, the corporatization, has only grown exponentially in the 75 years since that warning was issued. 

As the Trump administration now takes form after several months, there is no doubt about the big winner of the sweepstakes to become the head of the new privatized Deep State. It is the firm called Palantir, first founded in 2002 by the billionaire Peter Thiel and the multibillionaire Alex Karp back then to capitalize on the opportunities of surveillance and militarization that they perceived correctly, were presented by the War on Terror, and they have now become absolutely central – one could say virtually omnipotent – within the Trump administration and its various intelligence and military apparatus. 

As a result, understanding what Palantir is, what its capabilities are and what its driving ideology has become is indispensable to understanding whether this Deep State and Surveillance State part of our government is really being reformed and constrained, or whether it is simply being privatized in a far more concentrated, technologically sophisticated, powerful and sinister way than ever before. 

The sinister part of our government that has become known as the Deep State, the secretive part of our government, the Intelligence community, the Surveillance State – lots of different names for it, everyone knows, of course, what it is that we're talking about. We're talking about the part of the government that was created by Harry Truman's 1947 National Security Act that fostered, among other things, the precursor to the CIA, all kinds of new powers vested in the government under the guise of combating communism and the rise of the Soviet Union after World War II, which became this kind of Frankenstein that continued to grow and grow and grow far beyond what anyone ever envisioned it would be. 

In fact, it became so powerful so quickly, that only 14 years later, in 1961, Dwight Eisenhower, who, needless to say was no leftist, a five-star general and national hero, concluded that those agencies had become so secretive, so out of control and so rogue that they were becoming more powerful even than the office of the presidency. Often, they were acting without his knowledge, without his approval, even by deceiving him. 

And it wasn't just the public agencies; it was their union with the military corporations and the intelligence contractors that were forming this complex that was antidemocratic at its core. Over the decades, we've seen again and again how these powers were misused throughout the 1960s against various social justice movements, during the ‘70s, when there was finally supposed to be some reform in the form of the Church Commission, in 1977, that was really more symbolic than anything else, things like creating a Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee or the FISA Court are designed to control the way the government can spy on American citizens. 

Yet, through the '80s and the '90s, these powers only fortified; these supposed safeguards became more and more illusory. Once the War on Terror happened, all bets were off. The reliance by the Bush-Cheney administration first and then by the Obama administration led to an expansion and explosion of these powers that were previously unimaginable, even by the people warning about them in the ‘60s and the '70s, in part because – I would say primarily because – they ceased being directed outward at our adversaries, or even our allies, and instead became directed inward at American citizens in violation of the Constitution. 

The more that happened, the more acceptable it became, the more it expanded, the more it grew to the point where, by 2016, we saw very clearly how much the CIA, the FBI and the NSA were willing to interfere directly in our national elections and our domestic politics through all sorts of domestic propaganda. Concerns about this part of the government, these agencies, were primarily left-wing focused. That happened because a lot of the left-wing movements were targeted by them in the '60s and '70s. There was always kind of an anti-federal-government strain of the American right that also was deeply concerned about the NSA and the powers of federal agencies and the standing armies and law enforcement and armed agents of the state that the federal government maintained permanently, that were never supposed to be part of the design of our government but by and large, the Republican establishment, the American conservative movement, largely had been defending that until they began to see very clearly as well, principally because of how those powers were abused to spy on the Trump campaign, to spread propaganda and lies and artificial scandals like Russiagate and the lies about the Hunter Biden laptop and all sorts of other things to sabotage the Trump campaign, to sabotage the Trump presidency, just how out of control and how politicized these agencies had become, of course, culminating in the ultimate attempt to stop Donald Trump from winning in 2024 by using the ultimate lawfare against him, indicting him in four different jurisdictions for crimes that could barely even be called those. 

That created a serious sentiment among, I would say, mainstream conservatism, that the Surveillance State, the Deep State, the secretive part of our government was so out of control and that one of the top priorities of a new Trump administration was going to be, and must be, to clean that out, to rein that in, to constrain it back to what its real function is supposed to be, in the case of the FBI, doing real law enforcement against actual violent criminals, or organized gangs, or organized crime, not spying on and trying to criminalize your political opponents and your political enemies; in the case of the NSA, spying on foreign terrorist organizations, or another kind of international criminal organizations, not spying on American citizens without the warrants required by law; in the cases of the CIA, focusing on and collecting intelligence to inform the president, not interfering in and trying to manipulate and manufacture scandals for our domestic politics. This became central to what the Trump movement said it wanted, what Donald Trump and his new victory in 2024 represented. 

As I said, several of Donald Trump's choices to lead these agencies were clearly designed to send a signal that we're not going to pick people from these agencies who are indoctrinated in the ways that they exercise power, who are going to be there to simply defend the prerogatives of the agencies. We're going to choose outsiders, people who have been critical of how these powers have been abused, to go in and start cleaning them out. 

Those notably became the most controversial choices of Donald Trump's cabinet, not the people who wanted to perpetuate the status quo, not the people who were comfortable within these agencies and the powers that they exercised and the way they functioned, but the people who were designed to be outsiders to radically transform them. People like RFK Jr., when it came to Health and Human Services, but then Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel and Matt Gaetz for Attorney General, the people that were clearly there to radically root it out. That was a promising sign on the part of the Trump administration that that was something they intended to do. 

I think, though, two things got overlooked in all of that. One is the obvious tendency of people who oppose abuses of power when they're out of power, who believe that power needs to be constrained because it's exercised by their political opponents or in the hands of their political enemies and so insist that this power needs to be restrained. There's always a tendency once people get back into power to want to use the power to preserve it, even to expand it, and to believe that they're doing so in the name of something more noble, just, benevolent and less abusive, which is always one of the main challenges of using our two-party system to try to radically reform the government, namely, that people out of power have all the reason in the world to oppose and to object to certain powers inherent in the federal government, but when they get into office, there's a tendency to want to use those. That's always a danger. 

I think, however, the much bigger danger is that – and this is probably something that wasn't emphasized enough perhaps even by our show – so much of this Surveillance State, so much of the Deep State, the military and intelligence functions are overseen and manufactured, not by federal agencies as they ought to be. These are state powers, and they ought to be subject to state control by government agencies that are subject to the laws and transparency requirements, and democratic accountability, at least in theory, of being overseen by Congress and the courts. Instead, over the last couple of decades, they have been increasingly privatized, so that the actual entities that have run our military and intelligence agencies are not the NSA or the Pentagon; it is Booz Allen Hamilton, or Boeing, or Northrop Grumman, or Raytheon. Sometimes, they send their own executives into those agencies to make sure that their prerogatives are protected. Joe Biden's Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, came right from the board of Raytheon. 

So, it is a very integrated system of power, but in many ways, it's the privatized function of this system that often reigns supreme and there's always, as a result, a very intense competition, not only because of the power it bestows only, but especially because of the profits that it generates for whoever gets to be the primary contractor, the primary corporatized weapon of the Deep State. So you can reform the rules of these agencies, you can change the personnel, but as long as you have the outsourced, privatized corporations motivated to consolidate power, and especially to generate profit, which goes hand in hand, there really isn't any reform. In fact, the opposite is true. You will get continuous abuse. Maybe the names will change, maybe now it's not Booz Allen Hamilton, maybe it's now Palantir, but the system itself doesn't really change. 

We have seen signs from the White House and there's good reason to have seen this coming, a lot of people who are very closely aligned with, have been invested in and closely connected to the people who run these corporations, especially Palantir, became instrumental in financing the Trump campaign, which played a major role in the transition of Mar-a-Lago.

You could kind of see the signs that while a lot of people were railing against the old guard of the military-industrial complex, Boeing and Northrop Grumman and those types, a more technologically sophisticated kind of newer version of the corporatized Surveillance State was starting to gain power within the Trump world for all sorts of reasons that they had schemed and planned for, devoted a lot of money to Trump's campaign and I think we're now clearly seeing the fruits of that. It's time to really take a close look at exactly what is happening, principally with a corporation called Palantir at the center of it all. 

It's not just Palantir replacing other older versions of what might look like the old guard of the military-industrial complex. Palantir itself is a very extremist company in all sorts of ways, in terms of their vision of the future, in terms of the ethical constraints they do and don't believe in and, most of all, because of the ideology that their leaders,  their founders, that the people who run Palantir and now run various parts of the Surveillance State and military-industrial complex vehemently and passionately believe in and obviously are using those powers to advance those beliefs in a way that I think has gotten way too little attention. 

So, let's begin with the official starting point of when it became apparent that room was being made for new types of corporatized spying companies and militarized companies to acquire new power and new roles. 

One of them was an executive order issued by the White House and unveiled on March 20, 2025, two months after Donald Trump's inauguration. The headline of which was: “Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos (The White House. March 20, 2025.)

In other words, the problem, according to the new White House, is that information is not centralized enough. You have some information segregated over here, some segregated over there, some surveillance data here, some under this other agency, and they describe that as wasteful. What they want to do is to centralize it all under one authority. 

Personally, I would prefer that, to the extent the government collects data on American citizens, it remains fragmented and siloed and therefore weakened. However, the point of this executive order was to describe that as wasteful and to restructure the government to ensure its centralization, meaning its consolidated control under a handful of specific actors who would be in charge of it. 

Just let me emphasize that – and a part of this has to do with trying to empower what was known as DOGE, that the idea was we had to ensure that the DOGE team wasn't impeded in their ability to collect information, instead having access to everything. So here you see that the idea is to make certain to eliminate bureaucratic duplication and inefficiency by ensuring that there are no more barriers to federal employees accessing government data. 

Like most government programs, this could have a very benign intent, and it's described to appear benign. It's saying, “Look, there are some inefficiencies, we need to analyze all the data, unfortunately, the data is all siloed, it's all in different places and we want to make sure that we eliminate all of the barriers to accessing all of it. We want to be sure that designated entities, whether public like DOGE or private like private contractors, no longer experience impediments in collecting all the information and centralizing it all for whatever purposes they want to use that information.” 

As I said, one of the primary impetuses for this was to make sure that the team of DOGE that was designed to analyze waste and the like didn't have any further impediments to their ability to get at some of the most sensitive data about American citizens. 

Here's how CNN reported that in April 2025:

“They’re going to take the information we already have and put it into a system,” a Trump administration official told CNN about DOGE’s plans. “It will be able to rapidly queue information. Everyone is converting to Palantir.” (CNN. April 25, 2025.) So, that's the Trump administration's motto for what this reform is. Everyone is converting to Palantir, meaning all of this data collection, all of this data mining, all this access to information is all going to be done through Palantir, through devices and systems created by Palantir, implemented by Palantir, overseen by Palantir. 

Obviously, one reaction is to say, well, this seems like a good idea. I want the government to be able to more readily identify people who are in the country illegally; I want them to more readily identify fraud, so I have no problem with a system designed to centralize all this information to make it easier to achieve these noble ends. The problem is always how the expansion of the Surveillance State and the expansion of the Deep State are justified. They always give you a reason why they're doing it for your protection, why they are doing it for some good cause. 

All those programs ushered in in the wake of 9/11 and by the Bush-Cheney administration, the Patriot Act, warrantless surveillance on American citizens, the vast elimination of barriers designed to protect the privacy rights of Americans, all of that was justified in the name of finding terrorists more easily. We didn't find terrorists on 9/11, even though we had all the reason and all the evidence and all that data in the world that should have let us find them, we failed to. So, instead of holding people accountable, instead of making sure that we're looking more closely for terrorists, instead of all sorts of other things, we’re going to claim that we didn't have enough spying powers, we didn't have enough data mining powers. We're going to tell the American people, “Look, we're going to collect information in a much more aggressive way, including about you, but don't worry, we are just doing it because we want to keep you safe from the terrorists.” 

If you look at how the Patriot Act has been used, ever since it was implemented, ever since that justification was furnished that convinced a lot of people to support it, you will find that only in a small minority of cases has the Patriot Act been invoked in connection with terrorism investigations. It has been using a wide range of other sorts of efforts to investigate the American people, to keep track of them, and to give to law enforcement. I know for the first 10 years, the percentage of cases of actual terrorism investigations that the Patriot Act was used for was extremely small, I'm talking about 10% to 12%, 15%. So, of course, they're going to offer you good reasons why Palantir needs to collect and consolidate all this information under its control. “Oh, we're looking for illegal immigrants, we're thinking of criminals,” and the ability to have all this information under one company and eliminate all the barriers that were there to keep, preserve the privacy rights of Americans from having, from living in, an omnipotent Surveillance State. Those are bothersome, those are impediments to the policy goals that we want to achieve and so don't worry, we're getting rid of all of those. We're going to have it all put under this one company called Palantir. As I said, “everyone is converting to Palantir” is the exact quote. 

This didn't get much attention at the time. In the Trump administration, there are constantly all sorts of things going on. You have wars going on, you have attempts to avoid war, like in Iran, you have all kinds of new domestic policies. There were controversies about deporting students who criticize Israel. All sorts of things are just constantly going around. And so, when the Trump Administration says, everything is going through Palantir, not enough people really paid much attention to that. Now people are starting to wonder, “Wait a minute, what exactly is the role of Palantir? Who is Palantir and what do they intend to do?” The New York Times ran a story just a couple of weeks ago, May 30, the title of which was: “Trump Taps Palantir to Compile Data on Americans.”

This is one of the things that I recall during the Snowden controversy and the reporting and the debates that it spawned, this extreme irony that we were able to reveal how invasive, how sweeping, how limitless the information was that the NSA, unbeknownst to everybody, was collecting on American citizens without the warrants required by the constitutional law. I remember very well, one day, the NSA kind of trying to scope around for different excuses, said, “Oh, don't worry, we're very, very vigilant in the security measures that we use, we keep your data very, very safe, you don't have to worry.” 

Of course, one of the reasons that was not a very satisfactory answer was that the concern was that the NSA itself was going to abuse that information and had done so. But also, it was very hard to say that “Oh, don't worry, these security systems are so unbreakable, so reliable” when Edward Snowden had just right under their noses taking enormous amounts of that data without having any slight idea on the part of the NSA that he had done so. So, so much of this sounds familiar. “Oh, don't worry, we are centralizing all data about you in an unprecedented way.” It's not just some of it is at the NSA, some of it at the IRS, some of it at the CDC and some of it at Homeland Security. We're now centralizing all those agencies in one private company, Palantir. And we're being asked to believe that Palantir's goals are benevolent. The people running Palantir are going to handle this information responsibly and without abuse and, somehow, this information will be kept safe so that others with more malevolent intentions are incapable of using it. 

I think it's very important to note that Palantir was founded in 2002 because obviously that was at the height of the War on Terror, when people began to see not just the potential for government empowerment through a Surveillance State, but also privatized surveillance, which was and became a massive booming industry. And even for 2002, when people were almost accepting every kind of authoritarian measure offered because they were justified by, “Oh, don't worry. We're just using this to protect terrorists. We're not going to use it against you; your rights aren't endangered by creating an office of Total Information Awareness, as the name suggests, led by Dr. John Poindexter under the auspices of Donald Rumsfeld, that was a bridge too far, even for 2002. 

It was very revealing, however, of the limitless aspirations that the U.S. government had and knew that they could exploit 9/11 to create, essentially telling the American people, “we can’t have any more limits on our ability to collect information about you.” Out of that grew this office called Total Information Awareness that although the office was named in just too much of an Orwellian and creepy way for the American population and the American media to accept, became the ambition of the U.S. government that is what ultimately led to the NSA programs that were designed to collect all information on American citizens without warrants, to file it, to store it, and to be able to analyze it. That became the mindset of not just the U.S. government, but of corporations seeking to become the providers of the technology that would enable it and the vastly lucrative contracts that would come from that. 

It was in that ethos, in that period, seeking to exploit that opportunity that Peter Thiel and Alex Karp created Palantir to become this newly agile, highly sophisticated version of a company that had unprecedented power to collect and store and data mine information about hundreds of millions of people. That is the impetus that gave rise to Palantir, and it continues to this very day to be their primary mission. That primary mission is now being fulfilled, I think, beyond anyone's wildest dreams, given that the Trump administration is empowering them to be the company, the Deep State Surveillance State company, through which all information that the U.S. government maintains about American citizens is run through and stored through and is managed by one company, essentially overseeing the entire information collecting apparatus of the U.S. government. 

I do want to say that Alex Karp, though, in 2020, was depicted as this sort of unlikely, almost apolitical, cryptic figure. Over time, his politics have become remarkably clearer. 

 I just want to comment, too, as well, on this situation that I was personally involved in with Palantir's abuse, because this was quite a long time ago. This was 2012, I believe. But I do think it sheds a lot of light on what Palantir is, what it was even back then, when it still had a fairly good reputation. There were a lot of rumors that WikiLeaks was on the verge of releasing a huge and incriminating file about the Bank of America. One of America's largest banks, I think, maybe its largest commercial bank. The Bank of America was understandably quite alarmed by what was rumored to be an imminent, extremely incriminating release of a secret Bank of America file, the kind that WikiLeaks back then was doing regularly, not just to governments, but to other corporations. In response, Bank of America hired several firms to help it strategize what it should do in response to WikiLeaks' release of it. 

One of the groups hired to help strategize was Palantir, but a group of hackers was able to hack a company called HBGary, also hired, and the documents that were created by Palantir to help Bank of America against this WikiLeaks release were discovered and disclosed. One of the documents that was created with Palantir's cooperation was dated September 3, 2010, which is part of the strategy to help Bank of America against WikiLeaks. 

Here's part of what they said:

So, think about what they were actually saying there. You could choose to continue to pursue the cause you believed in, which was defending WikiLeaks, or you could choose preservation of your professional reputation and professional standing, but you couldn't choose both. They wanted to put people like me in that position, saying, “If you want to keep defending WikiLeaks, we're going to destroy your professional reputation, we're going to find things about you, we're going to leak things about you.” In case any of you think this is sort of the stuff that is the byproduct of paranoia or science fiction scripts about how these kinds of people work, here it is in black and white. 

This was 2010, just about five years after I began writing about politics. I was a little bit surprised, I will admit, by how sinister this is, kind of expressed in corporatist jargon, but it shows what Palantir is. They were saying, “We'll either force him to stop defending WikiLeaks or we'll destroy his career and his professional reputation” by finding out things about him, by leaking things, by launching coordinated campaigns. That was their strategy for discrediting WikiLeaks, for weakening WikiLeaks in defense of and in service to their corporate client that had hired them, which is the Bank of America. 

And then here's a reply from a Palantir person in the reply that says:

Now, this did become public. At the time, Palantir was trying to build this branding of its new corporation, a relatively new corporation still, as sort of a, “Yes, we are contractors to the intelligence agencies. Yes, we work with the CIA and we serve the NSA and the Pentagon. But we're the new version of military and intelligence contractors. We're the ones who care about civil liberties.” And they were trying to recruit the top students from places like Stanford, Harvard and the University of Chicago by pitching themselves as, yes, we work with these agencies you think are bad, but we're the kind who do it but insist on civil liberties protections. 

Once that document got revealed, and at the time it was very much associated with civil liberties and probably the left, it was embarrassing to them; it was very contradictory to the image they had spent a lot of time building. And so, yes, Alex Karp at the time did call me personally and said, “We deeply apologize for what this document was planning on, it never got to the execution stage, this is contrary to our values. We hope you'll accept our apology.” 

They made the apology public because that was the whole point of it, but I remember, of course, thinking Palantir seems like a very sinister company. How would I not think that? How would anyone not think that when you read that document? And they've only gotten more and more and more embedded into the intelligence apparatus, into the national security state, into the Deep State, to the point where as a result of these executive orders and this attempt to make Palantir essentially omnipresent in our government, they have reached the peak of their power, the kind of fulfillment of that Total Information Awareness program that even back in 2002 was considered too extreme, even though it was just a few months after 9/11. 

Peter Thiel, most of you know him, obviously supported Donald Trump in 2016, 2020 and 2024. He decided he wouldn't, though he has become, he's very, very close to JD Vance. JD Vance's personal wealth is due to his work with Peter Thiel and Thiel played a major role in financing JD Vance's Senate run in Ohio and also in securing Donald Trump's endorsement for JD Vance and what was a very contested Republican primary, obviously Trump's endorsement in the Republican primary, is essentially dispositive. So, JD Vance owes a lot of his career to his very close allies, to Peter Thiel, one of the founders of Palantir. 

But at this point, Peter Thiel's involvement in Palantir is quite minimal. The person who really runs Palantir is Alex Karp. Despite the fact that he has many billions of dollars and runs this extremely influential and increasingly menacing Deep State entity that is becoming particularly powerful within the Trump administration, very little attention has been paid to him in terms of who he is and what he thinks. But I think with the growing influence of Palantir, the kind of realization of the apex of its aspirations to become the omnipotent provider of government surveillance and the technology that runs it and the data that collects it, he's become very emboldened. He's been speaking a lot more publicly about his belief system, the agenda that he believes in, the ideology he pursues, he's far from some sort of neutral or apolitical technologist. Very much the opposite. He is a hardcore neocon, as devoted a loyalist to Israel as it gets. He very much believes in the virtues and necessity of American war and American power and makes very clear that the goal of Palantir is to serve that and maximize it. 

So, I just want to show you a little bit about Alex Karp, the person who really is the sole controller and manager of Palantir, the company that as we just showed you is now playing such a central role, almost unprecedentedly powerful role in America's Deep State and in its intelligence apparatus and security state. 

Here, from last month, is Alex Karp, who was doing an event at the Ash Carter Exchange. And here's part of what he said: 

Video. Alex Karp, The Ash Carter Exchange. May 7, 2025.

All right, here is Alex Karp speaking on CNBC. I just want to show you what he speaks about, what he prioritizes. Here he is proclaiming antisemitism in the United States, particularly the college protests against Israel, to be one of the greatest problems. And here's a decree that he issued about all of that. 

Video. Alex Karp, CNBC. June 20, 2024.

It would be, I think, sinister enough if somebody just completely apolitical was at the helm of a privatized Surveillance State as expansive and powerful and virtually limitless as Palantir now is. But to have somebody who views protest movements against a foreign government to which he's loyal, Israel, harbor so much contempt and so much hatred for the people who are those protesters. Does it seem like he's inclined to use this surveillance power or this data in very neutral and apolitical ways? Or do you think he's someone who feels so passionately about things like Israel that that information in his hands would almost certainly be weaponized against those who he thinks are advocating an ideology that he regards as evil or dangerous? 

Here from the New York Post, more on Alex Karp:

Peter Thiel, in November 2024 – as I said, he doesn't run the company, but he still is influential within Palantir – he spoke with – you'll never guess who – Bari Weiss, and she asked him about – you will never guess what – Israel. 

Here's what Peter Thiel said about his view of the U.S. and Israel:

Video. Peter Thiel, Bari Weiss, The Free Press. November 14, 2024.

So that's it. We just need to defer to Israel. “Look, we're not always going to be on the same page, but the best thing to do, defer to Israel, have Israel tell us what they want and give it to them. Have Israel tell us what they want us to do and do it. Let's just defer to Israel, and we'll be much better off.”

In late 2023, Palantir announced a policy which you would think would have created a lot of anger and opposition among the American right because it was as pure of an example of what is now called DEI, or job set-asides, as you could possibly imagine and yet people like Ben Shapiro and Bari Weiss, both instantly cheered it as soon as it was announced because it's the kind of DEI that they really like. But it also shows you how Palantir thinks as well, which, again, is an important thing to understand, given the power that they've now amassed. Ben Shapiro ultimately kind of backtracked a little bit when his own followers began saying, “What do you mean? How are you cheering for the DEI and job set-asides for specific minority groups when you've been claiming to oppose that your whole life?” 

But here is Palantir's announcement:

They created 180 jobs available, not based on merit, not open to everybody who competes based on merit in the United States, they created 180 jobs available exclusively to Jewish students who claim that they are endangered, exactly the kind of DEI programs where you say Black people have been historically oppressed and feel endangered in society or untreated fairly, therefore we're going to create 80 jobs only for Black people and everyone in the conservative movement or anything adjacent to it goes absolutely crazy, sues over it, says it's illegal, says it is immoral, says its racist. 

And here is Palantir doing exactly the same thing but only for Jewish students, I think indicating the ideology of the people, including Alex Karp, who run this now extremely powerful, centralized corporation that collects and maintains and does whatever it wants with all your personal data from the IRS to HHS to Homeland Security and everything in between. 

Here was Alex Karp quoted in The Hill and Valley Forum, where he was speaking about Israel and the role that Palantir plays in the Israeli attack on Gaza, which is significant. And he was asked basically, what about the role you're playing and the number of civilians being killed? Here's what he said. This was in April 2025. 

Video. Alex Karp, The Hill & Valley Forum. April 30, 2025.

I want to emphasize that, although we've been focused on Palantir's intelligence collection, one of the things they do is they are developing AI products designed to be used on the battlefield. This is actually a story we reported on previously at The Intercept as part of the Stone documents, I worked on it with my colleague Jeremy Scahill, that artificial intelligence or algorithmic analysis was being increasingly used to decide in the Obama administration who would live and who would die with the drone program. So, they would have signed this program would point to people based on who they talked to or in what proximity they were to other people, considered by the program to be bad and if you got enough points, you were deemed eligible for the kill list. These were not human intelligence assets giving information; these were purely algorithmic assessments that ultimately have now become more sophisticated with artificial intelligence, one of the things Palantir is working on. 

And one of the things we were able to discover was that Al Jazeera journalists who interviewed terrorists were not differentiated under this program. A lot of them had very high point totals that made them eligible to be killed, even though they weren't plotting with terrorists; they were interviewing people deemed to be adversaries by the U.S. government. 

That's why I say a lot of this technology is extremely dangerous. Doesn't mean we should ban it, probably other people are developing it, but you need serious safeguards on it to make sure that it's not being abused or pursued for political ends. And here you see somebody who's as loyal to a foreign country and therefore antagonistic to those who criticize that foreign country in the United States as you could possibly imagine, and he's the person amassing this massive power, not just of information but also increasingly of military weaponry. 

Here, he spoke at the Reagan Presidential Foundation in December 2024 and shared some of his philosophy about how the West needs to maintain dominance. 

Video. Alex Karp, Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation. December 7, 2024.

So, people like Alex Karp are very benevolent, very kind, very loving, very considerate, very fair, but the people who think differently, those are monstrous people; they live without ethics. As a result, we need to make sure that we develop the intel programs and the weaponization programs to keep the people whom we regard as adversaries in fear of us. And it's pure James Bond villain talk, sociopathic talk, which you could dismiss if not for the fact that he really is in a position where he's able to oversee the programs that will actually do that. 

Here's a little bit more of him talking about how he thinks social change of the kind that he wants in the United States should be effected. He's speaking at the Economic Club on May 22, just a little bit ago. And as I said, he's becoming more emboldened in speaking out publicly about just how extremist his ideology is, just how politicized he is after years of kind of hiding and remaining a mysterious figure. Here he is talking about how he wants to effectuate the social change he believes in. 

Video. Alex Karp, The Economic Club of Chicago. May 22, 2025.

So, the way social change happens is that you take the people you disagree with, your enemies, and you humiliate them, and you make them poorer. He was talking before about how if you're against him, if you believe in a cause he doesn't believe in, he thinks that not only you, but your family, and your mistress, all should be revealed and should be punished. They should have their bank accounts taken away. I mean, isn't this the kind of authoritarianism that we have been concerned about, have been objecting to, have been denouncing for so many years, the idea that if you have beliefs that people in power dislike, that you can have private information about you disclosed to humiliate you, that you could have your bank account stripped from you? But dissent can be crushed, and that's what he's saying: we need to make sure that people who dissent live in fear of what we can do to them. This is who Alex Karp is. 

There are people right now in the MAGA movement, people like Laura Loomer and others who are now thinking Palantir is a weapon available to Trump supporters calling on Palantir to be weaponized against the protesters in Los Angeles or other protesters against the Trump administration not surprising that that's the faction that also is very loyal to Israel who sees in Palantir not just an ally, but a weapon. 

But as I said before, one of the dangers always is when a movement comes in and says, we want to curb these abuses that have been used against us, we want to clean out the way these powers are being politicized. The big danger often is that those who get the power will seek instead to seize those powers for themselves and further fortify them. I do believe there are people inside the Trump administration whose vision is very antithetical to that, including people like Tulsi Gabbard, but this has a momentum. This is very powerful people behind it that want Palantir to ascend to this position for all sorts of reasons that they believe serve their agenda and we're well on our way to that happening. 

Watch this show on Rumble.

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

Glenn Greenwald is out and about doing his thing. He will return soon enough, and you're stuck with me. I'm Michael Tracy, whether you like it or not.

Tonight: DOGE seemingly terminated. Elon Musk announced that he is hitting the road, Jack. Might he come back? It's possible. However, I think we're at this point obligated to at least give a preliminary assessment of what DOGE really was. What did it accomplish or not accomplish? Were we told the correct information about what to anticipate, etc.? We will explore that. 

Next, as seems to be constantly the case these days, hair-trigger, tight wire negotiations are underway in a variety of hot spot geopolitical arenas, not least Iran and Gaza. So, is Steve Witkoff, who is the special envoy appointed by Trump to handle an astonishing multiplicity of portfolios, on the cusp of saving humanity from ruin, or are we destined for some kind of doom? We will review.

 And then, on Ukraine much of the media, much of the war bloggers, much of the commentators have been celebrating that yesterday Ukraine launched what is widely regarded to be one of its most audacious attacks on Russia yet thousands of kilometers inside Russian territory, and a bunch of people are pleased or excited that this could constitute what they have called “Russia's Pearl Harbor.” I don't know, it seems a little ominous. 

Okay, so last week, Elon Musk announced that he was departing the government effectively. He was a special government employee and therefore had a time-limited tenure, it would seem, in terms of his day-to-day activities in the Trump administration and that was seen to be on course to expire around now, end of May, early June. 

This has led to a good number of people thinking that it's probably timely to evaluate the record of DOGE, the performance of Elon Musk in this quasi-governmental role that he acquired by giving Donald Trump almost $300 million and in exchange being afforded with this historic opportunity to kind of, but not really, run the government. 

What's sort of odd about DOGE is that people still struggle to define it, even people within the government: you can't FOIA DOGE. The Trump administration is litigating against attempts to submit Freedom of Information Act requests, which are a very standard practice for journalists who want to get information about what government agencies are doing. The Trump administration has argued that the DOGE is not a federal agency in the sense that it would require them to submit to Freedom of Information requests. So, the definitional kind of categorization of DOGE is still somewhat nebulous. 

But let's go back to, let's cast our minds, shall we, back to November 2024. This is just after the election. Donald Trump had won handily all the swing states as we're still regularly reminded, etc. Elon Musk was getting the people going. He was fostering excitement among his supporters and dread among his detractors.