More than 100 major European banks, insurers, funds and pension schemes have massively expanded their holdings in Palantir within a single year. The total value now stands at at least 27 billion dollars. An increase of nearly 70 percent. At the same time, for years there have been allegations that the company’s software is used in deportations by ICE and plays a role in military operations, including by the Israeli army. Amnesty International already pointed out in 2020 that Palantir does not adequately meet its human rights due diligence obligations. A current assessment by MSCI assigns only two out of ten points for civil rights and human rights risks.

Despite this, the money continues to flow. Norges Bank now holds 29 million shares worth more than 5 billion dollars. Amundi stands at around 3 billion, Legal & General at about 2.5 billion. Barclays, Deutsche Bank and BNP Paribas are each in the billion range. Many of these investors refer to OECD guidelines, which specifically require careful due diligence in such cases. But practice shows something different. Whoever invests carries responsibility. Tara Van Ho makes it clear that in the case of credible indications of human rights violations, influence must be exercised. If nothing changes, one must withdraw.

The profits explain why this is not happening. The stock multiplied in 2025, the holdings have nearly exploded. Even a decline of around 15 percent in 2026 changes little. For many, returns matter more than the question of where the technology is used. This is no longer just about money. Palantir is deeply embedded in the American security apparatus. The CIA was an early investor through In-Q-Tel. The company holds the highest security clearances and processes data from military and intelligence agencies. Co-founder Peter Thiel supported Donald Trump as early as 2016 and was closely connected to JD Vance. Around 150 individuals from the circle of the Trump administration hold shares in Palantir according to analyses, including Stephen Miller. At the same time, the company secures multi-billion dollar government contracts, most recently a deal with the U.S. military that can reach up to 10 billion dollars.

This proximity is causing growing concern in Europe. Sophie in ’t Veld says that politics, business and ideology converge in a circle in which American interests dominate. Marietje Schaake warns that Europe too often sees Palantir only as an economic opportunity and in doing so weakens its own alternatives. Konstantin von Notz calls the development a contradiction to the values Europe stands for. The Bundeswehr’s cyber defense has internally warned of risks. At the national level, usage is restricted, while police authorities in some federal states continue to rely on the software.

Practical examples also show the doubts. The Swiss army has repeatedly rejected cooperation. In Denmark, an exit is being examined despite strong dependency. Francesca Bria goes further and describes Palantir as part of a geopolitical instrument. Whoever purchases these systems is not only buying technology, but giving up influence. She speaks of a development in which central state infrastructure is increasingly controlled by private actors that are not bound by democratic rules. Palantir rejects all allegations. The company emphasizes that it supports democratic states and works with U.S. governments independently of political changes. It says it takes concerns seriously and engages with organizations in the human rights field. For many critics, this is not enough. They see a dependency emerging that is hardly controllable politically.

Europe therefore faces a simple but uncomfortable question. Whoever invests also decides. Not only about returns, but about power, influence and how technology is used. In this case, this is not about just any company. It is about the infrastructure of security, surveillance and war. And about who ultimately determines it.