Not $10 billion spent.
$10 billion available.

Six numbers you should not mix up

The obligations nearly doubled, then rose again

We ran a USASpending query for Palantir-named recipients. Anyone can repeat it. It returned about $541.2 million in fiscal 2024 contract obligations. It returned $1.021 billion in fiscal 2025. And it returned $1.555 billion in fiscal 2026 through August 23.1 These totals can shift with amended awards, deobligations, and name matching. So they are dated federal-record totals. They are not fixed company revenue figures.

The growth spans both administrations. The Army announced a $480 million Maven prototype contract in May 2024 under President Biden.3 Then came a $795 million change to that deal on May 20, 2025.11 That history argues against one story. It shows the federal work did not start only after Vance joined the executive branch.

What the $10 billion actually means

In July 2025, the Army announced an enterprise agreement. It folded 75 contracts into one deal. The deal lasts up to ten years. Its top possible value is $10 billion.2 The Army said plainly that this cap “does not represent a commitment or obligation” to spend that much.

The Army said the goal was simpler buying, no reseller fees, volume discounts, and flexible ordering. Here is the real question. Does folding contracts together save money and work better? Or does it lock in one vendor and cut competition? The claim “Thiel received $10 billion” is false accounting. It does not hold up.

Thiel's real economic relationship

Palantir's 2025 proxy names Thiel as co-founder and board chairman. It reported he holds a large equity stake. Its 2026 proxy describes a shared, conditional founder voting setup. Together those founders can approach 50% of the voting power.5

Contracts can help a shareholder in an indirect way. They can raise expected cash flow and company value. But they do not turn every obligated dollar into the shareholder's income. Costs, revenue timing, taxes, market hopes, stock sales, and shared voting deals all matter. No record we reviewed shows a federal agency paying Thiel himself.

The appointment and the firewall

Official records name Jacob Helberg as a former senior adviser to Palantir's CEO. The Senate confirmed him in October 2025. His post is Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment.6

His disclosure and ethics deal listed Palantir pay. It required him to sell holdings and to step back for a time. His later OGE certification says he finished all required resignations and sales on time. It says he filed transaction reports.410 So this is a revolving-door risk. It is also proof that he completed the formal safeguard. The big awards named here came from Defense, Army, DHS, and Agriculture. They did not come from Helberg's State Department office. And no reviewed message ties him to picking them.

Private software does not become a public agency

ICE calls its Investigative Case Management system a customized version of Palantir Gotham. A later notice calls it proprietary Gotham hosted in Palantir Cloud.7 Palantir supplies the infrastructure, integration, search, links, workflow, and analytics. ICE keeps the published authority, not Palantir. ICE assigns user roles, sets retention and sharing rules, corrects government records, answers records requests, and makes enforcement calls.8

That line blocks a false claim. Palantir does not arrest or judge people itself. But the system is not politically neutral. And it is not open to the public. A private interface can shape which records get linked. It can shape which ties look important. It can shape what an official sees before using government power.

The controls exist. Their performance is not public.

ICE's published privacy design has several controls. It uses role-based access and supervisor-set permissions. It reviews access from time to time. It keeps transaction logs for seven years. It requires training. And it corrects records against the original sources.8 Its system-of-record notice gives ways to file requests. But it also uses law-enforcement exemptions. Those can limit access or changes.9

On paper, these are real safeguards. But the public records we reviewed leave gaps. They do not show system-wide false-positive testing. They do not show routine audit results. They do not show any notice when link analysis strongly affected a person. And they do not show an independent way to fight an inferred tie before enforcement. The line “A human made the final decision” does not tell us if the data, the inference, or the interface was reliable.

The missing contract terms matter

Earlier, ICE asked possible alternatives about data standards, licensing, approved implementers, and proprietary limits. Its later notice described a system that was installed, customized, proprietary, and vendor-hosted.7 That shows pressure to switch vendors. It does not prove an illegal single-source award.

The public award papers we reviewed do not show the signed terms. Those terms cover exporting government data and audit logs, migration help, deletion proof, custom-code rights, subcontractors, APIs, exit price, and transition performance. The honest read is simple. The public cannot see the contract's exit plan in the papers available now. That does not mean there is no exit plan.

The strongest defense

Palantir has done federal work under both parties. Special defense platforms and an incumbent's setup can narrow competition in a lawful way. Folding contracts together can cut repeat fees and add bargaining power. A cap keeps buying room open without promising to spend. ICE publishes its government-control rules. Helberg disclosed the conflict. He then certified that he finished the required resignations and sales.

That beats two claims. It beats “a donation bought a $10 billion check.” And it beats “Palantir makes the arrests.” But it leaves the bigger questions open. What about relying on one vendor? Single-bid awards? Migration rights? Data portability? Testing? The right to contest? Proof the controls work? Classified evidence? Case-specific recusals? And whether the promised savings ever show up?