https://www.msn.com/en-us/mone...6871d3efc1b506&ei=42

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...4015a961c4d054&ei=54

https://www.msn.com/en-us/mone...uxw?ocid=socialshare

President Trump, Palantir’s possible partnership: What to know
Story by Rob Taub • 20h • 3 min read

https://www.msn.com/en-us/mone...Qf3?ocid=socialshare

Palantir reacts to controversial New York Times allegations
Story by Colette Bennett • 22h •
3 min read

How Palantir Is Powering a New Age of Authoritarian Control
Story by Emily Standley Allard • 22h •
4 min read

Excerpt:

The New York Times report published May 30 states that in addition to Palantir's work with the Trump Administration using Foundry, Palantir has received more than $113 million in federal funding, according to public record, and that Palantir representatives are also in talks with the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service about buying its technology.

"Mr. Trump could potentially use such information to advance his political agenda by policing immigrants and punishing critics, Democratic lawmakers and critics have said," The NYT story reads.

"Privacy advocates, student unions, and labor rights organizations have filed lawsuits to block data access, questioning whether the government could weaponize people’s personal information."

The article also claims that some Palantir employees have been made uneasy by the company's decision to work with the Trump administration and that it "risks becoming the face of Mr. Trump’s political agenda."

Palantir addressed the NYT story in a tweet shared on X on June 3, denying the allegations.

"The recently published article by The New York Times is blatantly untrue," the tweet reads. "Palantir never collects data to unlawfully surveil Americans, and our Foundry platform employs granular security protections. If the facts were on its side, The New York Times would not have needed to twist the truth."

People had mixed reactions to the statement in the tweet thread, with some believing in Palantir and some less than convinced by what the company had to say.

Some users went into even more detail.

"Stating that you don’t 'unlawfully' surveil Americans is deliberately evasive," X user @DoniTheMisfit said. "It doesn’t deny surveillance — it simply implies government authorization, which is not the same as public consent or constitutional legitimacy."

"Likewise, referencing 'granular security protections' does not equate to individual privacy. It signals internal control over data — not limits on its collection or use. This isn’t transparency — it’s calculated language meant to deflect scrutiny while maintaining centralized access to sensitive information."