The New York Budgets

Tag: U.S. Department of Defense

  • Palantir’s Success in Washington and the Resulting 600% Surge in Its Stock Price

    Palantir’s Success in Washington and the Resulting 600% Surge in Its Stock Price

    Once dismissed as a niche Silicon Valley data-mining firm, Palantir Technologies PLTR +600.00% ▲ has undergone a dramatic metamorphosis, transforming into a central fixture in Washington’s national security and AI strategies. As its stock soared nearly 600% from early 2024 through mid‑2025, Palantir cemented its reputation as a co-equal to political insiders—and embraced the aggressive posture of the Trump era it now serves.

    Once dismissed as a niche Silicon Valley data-mining firm, Palantir Technologies has undergone a dramatic metamorphosis, transforming into a central fixture in Washington’s national security and AI strategies. As its stock soared nearly 600% from early 2024 through mid‑2025, Palantir cemented its reputation as a co-equal to political insiders—and embraced the aggressive posture of the Trump era it now serves.

    In early 2023, CEO Alex Karp stunned the company by announcing that Palantir was developing a next-generation Artificial Intelligence Platform (AIP)—even though no such project existed. As The Wall Street Journal recounts, Karp viewed the shift toward AI as inevitable and confidently placed Palantir at the center of it. His engineers then raced to build the product. What emerged became a centerpiece of national defense contracts and commercial integrations.

    In Q2 2025, AIP’s adoption helped Palantir smash through its first $1 billion quarterly revenue—a 33% rise in profits and skyrocketing U.S. commercial business by 93% year-over-year.

    Palantir’s proximity to power was turbocharged in President Trump’s second term, as the firm took over major federal contracts. It consolidated dozens of disparate deals into a $10 billion Department of Defense agreement, serviced by Palantir’s mission-grade Gotham and AIP platforms Axios reported.

    This alignment transformed Palantir from tech oddball to national strategic partner. Its new posture earned comparisons to Trump himself—tough, unfiltered, unapologetically patriotic.

    Palantir’s share price multiplied more than six-fold since early 2024, drawing enormous investor attention. Analyst Stephen Guilfoyle of WallStreetPit flagged the firm’s explosive growth: over 52% U.S. business growth in Q4, a 36% revenue increase, $1.25 billion in adjusted free cash flow, and profitability—even boasting 7 cents adjusted EPS. He raised his price target to a lofty $153/share, reflecting continued bullish sentiment.

    The stock’s rise has outpaced major indices. In early 2025, Palantir was among the top performers in the S&P 500 and Nasdaq‑100, ending over $400 billion in market cap—surpassing giants like Salesforce and Adobe.

    With the stock surging, CEO Karp executed an aggressive share selloff: 38 million shares worth roughly $1.88 billion in 2024 alone, much of it near the presidential election. He’s signaled plans to sell nearly 10 million more in 2025, indicating a continued cash-out strategy leveraging Palantir’s rally.

    Despite such windfalls, critics highlight Palantir’s outsized valuation—trading at more than 200x future earnings and 80x projected revenue, per FT’s John Foley. While revenue is strong, skeptics warn the stock behaves like a meme—powered more by hype than fundamentals.

    Palantir’s success rests on an ideological playbook: blend AI prowess with government proximity. The company has built a “revolving door” of personnel exchanges between Washington and its executive ranks—including figures drawn from the Pentagon, CIA, DHS, and even the UK’s NHS. That insider network helped lock in contracts exceeding $1.3 billion with U.S. defense agencies and expanded lobbying to $5.8 million in 2024.

    The firm’s approach is flexible: smartly toe political lines, anticipate shifts in power, and monetize defense policymaking. Palantir’s global positioning reflects that model—growing its Washington footprint even as its commercial footprint expands.

    The company’s victories aren’t immune to challenges. In February 2025, Palantir shares plunged nearly 20% after news broke that the Pentagon might cut defense spending by 8% annually for five years, threatening Palantir’s pipeline.

    Moreover, critics raise alarms about ethics and bias—its close ties to ICE and surveillance applications invite scrutiny over privacy, fairness, and oversight.

    Still, Palantir’s AI platform is winning new contracts beyond defense—it now serves clients like the FAA, CDC, IRS, and even corporate giants, and stands as a singular example of AI-centric growth in a sluggish tech sector.

    Palantir’s journey from controversial data firm to the poster child of AI‑powered government contracting has redefined what it means to succeed in tech—the old Silicon Valley playbook of consumer apps and venture capital liquidity has been traded for political entanglement and defense scoring.

    Its 600% stock run was fueled not just by AI hype, but by a deliberate embrace of political alignment and contract design. The question now is whether that trajectory can last—once the federal tide turns, or budgets tighten, Palantir’s value may be tested.

  • The Supreme Court permitted the Trump administration’s ban on transgender troops to be enforced while legal challenges continued

    The Supreme Court permitted the Trump administration’s ban on transgender troops to be enforced while legal challenges continued

    The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the Trump administration may start enforcing a ban on transgender troops serving in the military that had been blocked by lower courts.

    The ruling was brief, unsigned and gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications. It will remain in place while challenges to the ban move forward.

    The court’s three liberal members — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — noted dissents but provided no reasoning.

    The case concerns an executive order issued on the first day of President Trump’s second term. It revoked an order from President Joseph R. Biden Jr. that had let transgender service members serve openly.

    A week later, Mr. Trump issued a second order saying that “adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful and disciplined lifestyle.”

    The Defense Department implemented Mr. Trump’s order in February, issuing a new policy requiring transgender troops to be forced out of the military. According to officials there, about 4,200 current service members, or about 0.2 percent of the military, are transgender.

    The Supreme Court’s order came against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s broad attacks on transgender rights. The administration has sought to bar transgender athletes from sports competitions. It has tried to force transgender people to use bathrooms designated for their sex assigned at birth. And it has objected to letting people choose their pronouns.

    The justices will soon decide the fate of a Tennessee law that bans transition care for transgender youths, challenged in a case brought by the Biden administration. The Trump administration flipped the government’s position in that case in February, after an executive order directed agencies to take steps to curtail surgeries, hormone therapy and other gender transition care for people under 19 years old.

    In the case decided on Tuesday, seven active service members, as well as a person who sought to join and an advocacy group, sued to block the policy, saying, among other things, that it ran afoul of the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

    One of the plaintiffs, Cmdr. Emily Shilling, who began transitioning in 2021 while serving in the Navy, has been a naval aviator for 19 years, flying more than 60 combat missions, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. Her lawyers said the Navy had spent $20 million on her training.

    In March, Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the Federal District Court in Tacoma, Wash., issued a nationwide injunction blocking the ban, using Commander Shilling as an example of the policy’s flaws.

    “There is no claim and no evidence that she is now, or ever was, a detriment to her unit’s cohesion, or to the military’s lethality or readiness, or that she is mentally or physically unable to continue her service,” Judge Settle wrote. “There is no claim and no evidence that Shilling herself is dishonest or selfish, or that she lacks humility or integrity. Yet absent an injunction, she will be promptly discharged solely because she is transgender.”

    Judge Settle, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, wrote that the government had failed to show that the ban was “substantially related to achieving unit cohesion, good order or discipline.”

    “Although the court gives deference to military decision-making,” the judge added, “it would be an abdication to ignore the government’s flat failure to address plaintiffs’ uncontroverted evidence that years of open transgender service promoted these objectives.”

    The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit refused to blockJudge Settle’s ruling while it considered the administration’s appeal.

    The administration then sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, saying that “the district court’s injunction cannot be squared with the substantial deference that the department’s professional military judgments are owed.”

    At a minimum, the government said the Supreme Court should limit Judge Settle’s ruling to the plaintiffs in the case and lift the balance of the nationwide injunction.

    The court opted for the broader approach, pausing the injunction entirely. Lawyers for the challengers reacted with dismay.

    “Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender service members who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense,” said a statement from Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation.

    Judge Settle’s ruling followed a similar one from Judge Ana C. Reyes of the Federal District Court in Washington. “The law does not demand that the court rubber-stamp illogical judgments based on conjecture,” wrote Judge Reyes, who was appointed by Mr. Biden.

    The District of Columbia Circuit entered an “administrative stay,”saying the brief pause in enforcing Judge Reyes’s ruling “should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits.” That court is expected to rule shortly on the government’s request that it block Judge Reyes’s ruling while the appeal proceeds.

    Early in his first term, Mr. Trump announced a transgender ban on Twitter, but two federal judges blocked the policy.

    The Supreme Court lifted those injunctions in 2019 by a 5-to-4 vote, allowing a revised ban to take effect while legal challenges moved forward. The cases were dropped after Mr. Trump left office and Mr. Biden rescinded the ban.

    In its emergency application, the administration said the policy on transgender troops that the justices had allowed in 2019 was materially identical to the new one.

    The challengers disputed that, saying the earlier policy allowed active-duty service members who had transitioned to remain in the armed forces, which Mr. Trump’s new policy does not. They added that the earlier policy “lacked the animus-laden language” of the new one, which they said disparaged “transgender people as inherently untruthful, undisciplined, dishonorable, selfish, arrogant and incapable of meeting the rigorous standards of military service.”