Blog

Palantir reignited debate over the role of artificial intelligence in warfare in a weekend social media thread on X, drawing criticism for promoting a vision of AI-driven military deterrence.

The defense technology company used the post on Saturday to summarize arguments from “The Technological Republic,” a 2025 book co-authored by CEO Alex Karp.

“Silicon Valley owes a moral debt to the country that made its rise possible,” the company wrote. “The engineering elite of Silicon Valley has an affirmative obligation to participate in the defense of the nation.”

The thread argues that modern military power will increasingly depend on software and technological “hard power,” rather than traditional hardware. It also frames the development of AI-driven weapons as inevitable and argues that the central question is which nations will build and control them.

“If a U.S. Marine asks for a better rifle, we should build it; and the same goes for software,” Palantir wrote. “We should as a country be capable of continuing a debate about the appropriateness of military action abroad while remaining unflinching in our commitment to those we have asked to step into harm’s way.”

Founded in 2003 by Peter Thiel and Alex Karp, Palantir develops data analysis and artificial intelligence software used by governments and intelligence agencies. The company has secured multibillion-dollar contracts with the U.S. military.

Palantir’s thread extended beyond military technology into broader geopolitical ideas. The thread also suggested that Germany and Japan should reconsider military restrictions imposed by the United States and its allies after World War II.

“The postwar neutering of Germany and Japan must be undone. The defanging of Germany was an overcorrection for which Europe is now paying a heavy price,” Palantir said. “A similar and highly theatrical commitment to Japanese pacifism will, if maintained, also threaten to shift the balance of power in Asia.”

It also raises the possibility of universal national service, a sentiment recently echoed by the Donald Trump administration, which instituted an automatic military draft registration policy earlier this month.

“National service should be a universal duty,” the post said. “We should, as a society, seriously consider moving away from an all-volunteer force and only fight the next war if everyone shares in the risk and the cost.”

The posts drew criticism from technology experts and policy advocates who said the arguments promote a vision of global politics defined by competition for AI military capability, and warned that framing artificial intelligence as a strategic deterrent risks encouraging more aggressive defense policies.

Savannah Wooten, a policy advocate with the non-profit group Public Citizen, said tech companies often claim a national security role to win government contracts.

“A firm like Palantir will gladly backfill a national security rationale to ensure the same outcome for itself. No state should have corporate executives leading its decision-making, let alone the country with the largest and most heavily funded military in the world,” Wooten told Decrypt. “A corporation will not look after everyday people, and Palantir pretending it has a moral imperative to do so is nothing more than a savvy PR move.”

Yanis Varoufakis, a left-wing economist who served as Greece’s finance minister, similarly criticized Palantir’s arguments as dismissive of the public, supportive of force-driven policy, and aligned with billionaire interests, warning of growing ties between surveillance capitalism and state power.

“Silicon Valley owes an immeasurable debt to the ruling class who bailed out the criminal bankers that wrecked the livelihood of the majority of Americans,” he wrote. “The engineering elite of Silicon Valley will defend that ruling class to the death (literally!), in the name of the majority of Americans whom they treat with contempt – i.e., like cattle that have lost their market value.”

Palantir supporter Shawn Maguire, a partner at the VC firm Sequoia, called the company’s post “brilliant,” writing on X: “Despite what the extremes preach on social media and Ivy League campuses, Palantir represents the ideological center with a rarely articulated moral clarity.”

The debate comes amid a growing divide over the role artificial intelligence should play in warfare and society. Some, including Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, have pushed back on the military use of their technology to produce AI-enabled weapons, warning that the systems could introduce new risks. However, others, including U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, argue that democratic nations must develop AI-driven military capabilities to deter rivals such as China and Russia, which are also investing heavily in the technology.

Still, political scientist Donald Moynihan said statements like Palantir’s thread provide insight into how powerful technology leaders view politics and power.

“When they roll out their political manifestos, we should take them seriously, if not literally,” Moynihan wrote on Substack. “Public statements by these actors, while often couched in statesmanlike or visionary terms, offer insights into a growing power elite: what they like, what they hate, their enemies, what they felt are entitled to.”

Reabold Resources, a U.K.-based energy firm with a focus on oil and gas, told investors that it is “exploring the potential” to mine Bitcoin with a small-scale power generation facility in Yorkshire—though its tone softened following initial pushback to the idea.

“A private gas supply means we can run a data center to mine Bitcoin relatively cheaply,” Reabold co-CEO Sachin Oza told The Telegraph. “Initially, this would help fund the further development of the gas field and prove the concept—meaning it could become the precursor to a far larger data center.”

The firm’s official announcement, made Monday as a “clarification of media article,” differs in tone from the news report from The Telegraph, which suggested the firm would use its West Newton gas field to “mine Bitcoin instead of boosting British energy.” 

“The significant onshore natural gas resource at the West Newton site in Yorkshire has and will continue to be progressed for the benefit of U.K. energy security, which is particularly important at this time of significant geopolitical uncertainty,” the firm wrote in its media clarification.

“In addition, Reabold will continue to engage with all stakeholders, both locally and nationally, to ensure the optimal development pathway for West Newton is achieved,” it added. 

The firm’s statement said it could potentially use the initial flows of gas to power a Bitcoin mining operation, mirroring Oza’s message to The Telegraph. Doing so could showcase the feasibility of using the West Newton gas field for “data center developments that will be crucial to the future U.K. economy,” its statement said. 

“Successful implementation of such a project could allow for the development of a larger-scale data center at site, which would not preclude the potential for gas to grid, or gas to industrial consumption development options,” it wrote. 

The firm’s response follows criticism from anti-fracking leader Lorraine Inglis, who told The Telegraph that “using that gas to power Bitcoin mining is not energy security or any genuine public benefit, but the deliberate burning of fossil fuels for one of the most energy-intensive and socially questionable activities at a time of high bills and missed climate targets.”

Shares in the firm (RBD) were up 7.3% on Monday on the clarification that followed Sunday’s Telegraph report.

The firm’s entry into the Bitcoin mining space would buck the trend that has seen publicly traded Bitcoin miners stray from mining the top crypto asset, instead to provide compute power for artificial intelligence (AI). For example, Bitfarms rebranded to Keel Infrastructure and dumped its Bitcoin business to pursue opportunities in AI energy demand.

The world’s most important oil chokepoint has been effectively shut (with some hiccups here and there) since late February, and traders aren’t expecting it to return to normal anytime soon.

Traders on the prediction market Polymarket place odds at just 28% that shipping traffic returns to normal to the Strait of Hormuz by April 30—even after Iran and the U.S. declared a ceasefire, and Tehran claimed to reopen the waterway.

The reason: Ships are still turning back. Video from vessel-tracking firm Kpler shows tankers attempting to exit the strait and reversing course, while the world’s largest shipping association, BIMCO, has advised vessels to avoid the area entirely, citing an uncleared mine threat. The strait is “not declared safe for transit at this point,” BIMCO’s chief security officer told CNBC late last week.

On paper, the 2026 Strait of Hormuz crisis began on February 28, when the U.S. and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury—coordinated airstrikes targeting Iranian military and nuclear facilities.

Iran’s IRGC responded by declaring the strait closed to vessels traveling to and from ports of the U.S., Israel, and their allies. Tanker traffic collapsed by more than 90%. Brent crude shot above $100 a barrel for the first time in four years, peaking near $126—the fastest oil price spike associated with any conflict in modern history.

The ceasefire announced April 8 brought a brief burst of optimism. Brent dropped roughly 12% in a single trading session. But the physical reality on the water didn’t follow the diplomatic headline.

Iran imposed crypto tolls of about $1 per barrel on passing tankers, with the IRGC reportedly collecting up to $2 million per vessel in Bitcoin, Chinese yuan, and USDT. Then on April 18, Tehran reversed course again, reimposing restrictions and citing a U.S. port blockade. Traffic remains below 5% of pre-war volumes.

That’s the backdrop for a cluster of prediction market bets that are telling a consistent story: disruption is far from over.

On Myriad—the prediction platform launched by Decrypt‘s parent company Dastan—the crude oil direction market is pricing a 63.2% chance that Brent pumps to $120, versus 36.8% for a dump to $55.

It’s worth noting that the odds of Brent oil spiking on Myriad have never been below 50%. There was a brief period of optimism back on April 17 when the odds reached 50.9%, but the panic won out again (as it usually does during a war) and predictors increased their bets on oil going to new highs.

A separate Myriad market asks whether the average number of ships transiting Hormuz will get back above 15 before May: The odds lean 61.8% “Yes,” but the chart tells a more complicated story—the probability swung wildly from near 90% down to under 40% across a single week in early April before stabilizing.

Meanwhile, a third Myriad market suggests there is 70.5% chance that President Donald Trump announces the end of military operations against Iran before June. This is not what Trump seems to have in mind, as he just told reporters he “will not be rushed” to end the war—though June is still far enough away that it provides the market some wiggle room.

Taken together, the markets are sketching a scenario where some normalization comes—but slowly, and not cleanly. On Polymarket, the odds for Hormuz traffic to return to normal by May 31 sit at 61%. Those odds increase to around 70% when the date is moved further to June 30.

In other words, traders think the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz happens eventually, just not this month, and probably not without more drama along the way.

The BIMCO warning remains in effect. IMF Portwatch—the resolution source for the Polymarket market—requires a 7-day moving average of at least 60 vessel arrivals for the market to resolve to “Yes.” Current data is nowhere near that threshold, the first date marker, April 30, is just 10 days away.

The economic stakes are real. Dallas Fed research published in March estimates that a full-quarter Hormuz closure could knock 2.9 percentage points off annualized global GDP growth in Q2 2026 alone. The Strait moves roughly 20% of global oil and a comparable share of liquefied natural gas, with no meaningful alternative route for most of that volume.

Crypto traders have been navigating the chaos with particular creativity. As Decrypt reported in March, oil-linked perpetual futures on the DeFi platform Hyperliquid processed roughly $991 million in 24-hour volume during peak Hormuz tension—compared to about $75,000 on Coinbase over the same period. Always-on crypto markets have become a real-time pressure gauge for a crisis that doesn’t care about trading hours.

The prediction market angle itself has drawn scrutiny. Senator Chris Murphy raised alarms in early March after blockchain analytics firm Bubblemaps identified six suspected insider accounts that collectively made $1.2 million betting on U.S. strikes on Iran—with wallets funded and positions opened in the hours before explosions in Tehran.