Palantir Co-Founder Joe Lonsdale Slams "Very Weird" Trump White House 10% Intel Stake

In a candid and highly critical statement, Palantir Technologies co-founder Joe Lonsdale recently voiced his profound bewilderment and disapproval over a reported incident during the Trump administration. Lonsdale expressed his shock that the White House, specifically through the National Security Council (NSC), allegedly acquired a 10% stake in technology giant Intel in 2017.

He didn't mince words, describing the move as "very weird" and raising serious questions about government overreach into the private sector.

Lonsdale, a prominent figure in venture capital and a long-time observer of government-tech relations, shared his astonishment on social media. The implication of the U.S.

government taking such a significant ownership position in a major American company struck him as deeply problematic. This wasn't merely a business transaction; it signaled a potential shift in the foundational principles governing the relationship between Washington D.C. and Silicon Valley.

What made the alleged acquisition even more alarming for Lonsdale was his immediate comparison to the tactics of authoritarian regimes.

He unequivocally stated that such actions are reminiscent of how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) operates. This stark parallel highlights his deep concern that the U.S. government might be treading a path that blurs the lines between public oversight and direct state control, echoing practices antithetical to a free-market economy.

The incident, as described by Lonsdale, points to a broader anxiety within the tech and investment communities regarding the government's growing involvement in strategic industries.

While national security interests often necessitate close collaboration between government and tech, direct equity stakes raise red flags about potential conflicts of interest, market manipulation, and the erosion of corporate independence. Such interventions can stifle innovation and create an uneven playing field.

Lonsdale's comments underscore a critical debate about the boundaries of government power and the preservation of capitalist principles.

In a nation built on free enterprise, the notion of the executive branch secretly acquiring ownership in a leading tech firm challenges deeply held beliefs about economic freedom and limited government. It forces a re-evaluation of how much influence is too much, especially when it comes to the engines of technological progress.

Ultimately, Lonsdale's vocal criticism serves as a powerful reminder of the vigilance required to protect the integrity of a free market.

The reported Intel stake, if true, represents a concerning precedent that warrants greater transparency and public discussion, ensuring that government actions align with democratic values and foster a truly competitive and innovative environment.