Concerns over the actions of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have sparked significant unrest among employees of Palantir Technologies. Following the tragic shooting of ICU nurse Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minneapolis, workers have begun to voice their disgust regarding the company’s collaboration with ICE, which is overseen by the Department of Homeland Security. This discontent has been highlighted in recent reports from Wired.
In the wake of Pretti’s death, some Palantir employees took to internal communication channels to express their unease about the company’s involvement with ICE. One employee articulated their feelings in a Slack discussion, stating, “In my opinion, ICE are the bad guys. I am not proud that the company I enjoy so much working for is part of this.” This sentiment, shared by many, raises questions about the potential reputational damage the company could face due to its association with ICE, particularly if political dynamics shift in the future.
The Slack channel, dedicated to discussing news items, saw several posts that criticized ICE’s actions and questioned Palantir’s role in supporting the agency. Many of these comments received numerous positive reactions, indicating that the sentiment was widespread among employees. Concerns were also raised about the possibility of Palantir’s technology being used to facilitate actions against individuals seeking asylum, with one worker asking, “Can Palantir put any pressure on ICE at all?”
Palantir has established deep connections with ICE, having provided the agency with tools such as ELITE, a tracking system that utilizes Medicaid data and other government sources to create profiles of individuals potentially eligible for deportation. Additionally, the company secured a $30 million contract to develop the ImmigrationOS, which aims to enhance ICE’s ability to monitor individuals self-deporting from the country.
Despite the company’s significant role in ICE’s operations, employees have reported a lack of transparency regarding Palantir’s work with the agency. Many have turned to media reports to understand better the nature of their employer’s contracts with ICE. In response to the growing unrest, Palantir’s civil liberties team updated its internal resources, attempting to clarify the company’s stance and emphasizing that their technology aims to mitigate risks while achieving targeted outcomes. They acknowledged the ongoing issues of racial profiling and deportations by ICE, as well as the reputational risks associated with their partnership.
Nevertheless, the internal response did not quell the employees’ concerns. They pressed leadership about the potential misuse of Palantir’s tools by ICE, leading to an admission from one executive that the company does not monitor every application of its platform. This raised further questions about accountability, especially after reports surfaced of an ICE agent allegedly adding an individual to a “domestic terrorist” database.
The growing dissatisfaction within Palantir reflects a broader discontent with ICE’s actions, particularly in connection with the recent events in Minneapolis. Journalists have reported that even some agents within ICE have expressed frustration over the handling of situations like Pretti’s death. One agent criticized the reliance on lethal force, questioning the justification behind such actions.
Palantir’s situation underscores the complex dynamics between technology companies and law enforcement agencies. As employees continue to grapple with their company’s role in controversial practices, the outcome of this internal conflict may influence not only Palantir’s future partnerships but also the broader conversation around corporate responsibility in relation to government actions.
