Response to interpellation 2025/26:301 on the use of the analysis platform Palantir
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the use of the analysis platform Palantir. M argues that the justice authorities' processing of personal data is governed by a comprehensive regulatory framework and well-established supervision 1. M emphasizes that the technology is ethically neutral 2 and that the authorities are sovereign in deciding which technical solutions they should use 3 4. M highlights that Sweden has a robust democratic rule of law that strikes down unauthorized uses 4. S argues that Palantir is a controversial tool 5 6 and that politicians must have primary responsibility for which tools the authorities use 5. S argues that it is problematic to become dependent on an American tech giant 7 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Petter Löberg has asked a series of questions to me regarding the use of the analysis platform Palantir by the law enforcement authorities, including the Swedish Police Authority, for analysis and intelligence work. In summary, Petter Löberg's questions concern how fundamental principles of legal certainty, such as proportionality, predictability, and the possibility of subsequent review, can be maintained when it comes to Palantir.
In November 2025, I answered a written question from Petter Löberg on a partially similar theme. As I stated then, it is the Swedish Police Authority that itself decides which IT services the authority procures and uses in its operations. As I also stated, the Swedish Police Authority's processing of personal data is governed by an extensive and detailed regulatory framework, not least through the Crime Data Act (2018:1177). The Swedish Police Authority's processing of such data is also subject to both internal and external supervision.
The law enforcement authorities' processing of personal data is surrounded by an extensive regulatory framework and well-developed supervision. Just as when I answered Petter Löberg's previous question, I have full confidence that the law enforcement authorities' processing of personal data follows the applicable regulatory framework.
Petter Löberg (S)
Mr. Speaker! Initially, I must still thank you for the answer. At the same time, I think the Minister might have answered me: It was so little. It was indeed quite little answer. He answers in principle only that this is a regulatory framework that exists and that the authority decides for itself. I have full confidence, he says. I am removing my hands from the matter completely.
It is strikingly passive. The Minister does not even make an effort to try to answer the questions that have been asked. I asked five questions, and in reality, he only answers one. Four remain unanswered.
It is also quite counterproductive given the nature of the question. Palantir is, in fact, a very controversial tool. Much of the international debate, not least, concerns obfuscation and a lack of transparency. Now, the Minister for Justice had the chance to show that one is not putting a lid on it. Yet, he does just that. Unfortunately, it is perhaps another step on the slippery slope for the rule of law which, not least, the Minister for Justice administers – now I am being a bit harsh toward an otherwise very competent minister.
For the sake of clarity: I am very well aware of the regulations that exist regarding data supervision. This is, however, a change in situation that has occurred with the procurement of these programs – it is several programs. When such a change in situation occurs, the policy must be forward-looking. It is not sufficient to sit on one's hands and merely lean on old regulations. One must then try to think and analyze on a deeper level. I hope that the government does so, even if it is not expressed in this debate.
What is this really about? What is Palantir? Well, it is about a software, and not just any software. There are many names for it – Gotham is one, but there are also local variants.
Those of you who know your Tolkien know where the name comes from. A palantir is a dark sphere that the elves manufactured to be able to see things and combine information. It was guardians and rulers who were to use this sphere as an effective tool for controlling people. But it was done for the good. The problem with the palantíri in The Lord of the Rings was that they were taken over by the evil. Thus, the name is incredibly poorly chosen as a name for a software and a company that works with justice-related issues.
Or maybe it is not that. We can only look at what background the people who developed the software and started the company, which has been called the "scare company" Palantir in the media, have. The criticism has also taken concrete form. They are accused of having been involved in the enormous abuses in Gaza. They are accused for – and it is also confirmed – having been one of the architects behind ICE's work in hunting people in the USA, with devastating results.
We in our country must not end up there. It is actually the politics that, in the end, must always have the primary responsibility for which tools our authorities use. I should not have to remind the Minister for Justice of that.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues today, even if it perhaps sometimes happens a bit loosely and with rather broad brushstrokes.
There is no doubt whatsoever that there is a lot of technology that can be used for both good and bad purposes. This does not only apply to just this technical platform or just this tool. Secret coercive measures can, in general, be used for good and bad purposes. Camera surveillance can be used for good or bad purposes.
In that respect, the technology as such is ethically neutral. The question is who uses the technology, how it is regulated, how oversight is exercised, and what the consequences will be if any transgressions occur. In that respect, this technology does not differ from other technologies and other tools that our law enforcement agencies can utilize.
My point is unambiguous, namely that our rules, regardless of whether it concerns that type of tool or other tools, are unambiguous. One is therefore not allowed to use that type of tool, or for that matter any other tools, in the manner described in Petter Löberg's speech. The irregularities pointed out in other countries occur because they have either been allowed to do so in those countries or have done so in any case. It is therefore not permitted in Sweden, as there is a very rigorous supervision of all use of that type of tool in Sweden.
When I say that I have full confidence in the oversight, I am of course not naive. I realize that irregularities can occur even in a democratic state of law like Sweden, but there are therefore systems in place to catch irregularities, examine them, demand accountability, and ensure that such things do not happen again. It is not an expression of naivety, but rather trust in the regulatory frameworks and the systems we have established with control and oversight in hindsight and so on, which we have as a cornerstone in all our use of such technology, secret coercive measures, or whatever it may be.
I heard Petter Löberg say that we are on a downward slope when it comes to the rule of law in Sweden. It would be interesting to hear exactly what is meant and if that is also the Social Democrats' line. I am happy to have that discussion in substance. For my part, I believe that our democratic rule of law is challenged by very serious and grave crime, and it is necessary for us to move the positions significantly, also in the use of new technology.
I will not go into this specific tool, but for example, there are proposals to use AI and real-time facial recognition. Everyone understands that AI can be used for bad purposes, but there is a difference if we use AI in Sweden in crime fighting than if one, for example, does it in China. That is my main point here, namely that we have regulations, follow-up, supervision, control, and systems for accountability. Ultimately, it is such that the legislator is not at all passive in these issues. All that I just described is the result of decision-making in the chamber, that is to say, which rules shall apply and what shall happen if someone ventures to violate them.
With that said, I mean that our democratic rule of law – our authorities – is well-equipped to use different types of technical solutions to fulfill its completely central task, namely to protect the citizens, create safety in our society and protect society against serious crime, and to always do so in such a way that one lives up to the high standards of rules that apply to our democratic rule of law.
Petter Löberg (S)
Mr. Speaker! The Minister for Justice has for many years been a strong advocate for and guardian of the rule of law principles, above all the individual's rights.
In this case, it is a question of a change in situation, and that is what we are discussing. Whether it is a broad brushstroke or not, that is what we are discussing. Here we are talking about that we, in the long term, structurally and on an almost constitutional basis, find ourselves in a situation where we can become dependent on an American tech giant. This is a situation that we have not found ourselves in previously – it is completely different compared to how it was previously with the traditional capitalists.
The tech giants are politically oriented. They have agendas. Elon Musk had an agenda when he took over Twitter, turned it into X, and changed the algorithms. Peter Thiel, the founder behind Palantir, is a person who wants to abolish democracy. He is extremely helpful and is going to found mythical cities in northern Greenland while Donald Trump engages in aggression against our European neighbor Denmark.
This is not a question of just anyone. They are not capitalists who only care about black or red figures at the bottom of a paper, but these are political activists whose software we have obviously purchased. It is a question of software that is also AI-based – there are modules with AI – and consists of black box solutions. This means that we actually do not know what it is we are supposed to audit. This is a dilemma, and it is a reason why Europol, the European police, left the solution already in 2021. The European Data Protection Supervisor argues that it is not possible to understand how to audit such large amounts of data. How are we going to be able to do that in Sweden? In Sweden we have a system, says the Minister for Justice. It is not serious when it comes to the situation we find ourselves in right now.
My question remains: How does the Minister assess the risk of becoming technically dependent on that type of person, for example Peter Thiel, in the long term?
One can also wonder what the meeting at Grand Hôtel last summer was about. Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson met both Karp, Chief Operating Officer for Palantir, and Peter Thiel at a secret meeting with the Bilderberg Group. Suddenly we are sitting here with the software, possibly with the Swedish police.
Transparency and oversight in a democratic state governed by the rule of law are crucial for people's trust in the rule of law. Matters are settled in closed rooms, and when the media request notes, most of it is redacted, classified, and hidden from the citizens and the media. It is completely unacceptable.
I have half a minute left to say something, but there is another chance to reflect a bit philanthropically on the problems with this type of program – which we actually don't even understand how they work. I would like the Minister for Justice to reflect on these issues.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! This is, in itself, an incredibly important issue, but it is difficult to take it seriously when it is framed in the way that Petter Löberg does with the Bilderberg Group and secret meetings at Grand Hôtel. It is a type of conspiracy theory that we recognize from a long series of different contexts that seek to cast suspicion on the government. I am perhaps a little surprised to hear this from a Social Democratic Member of Parliament in the chamber. But the time for surprises is not entirely over.
What I can say is that the government does not procure technical solutions for our law enforcement agencies. It is our law enforcement agencies that are completely sovereign when it comes to such matters and decide which types of technical solutions they shall utilize in their operations.
However, the government and the Riksdag are involved in another respect, namely that we establish clear rules for how such an activity shall be conducted, how it shall be monitored, and how accountability shall be enforced. It is not the case that the technical tools we are now talking about differ from other tools in that respect. In such a case, it would be interesting to hear the basis for that, other than a more general sweep in relation to how the tool has been misused by authorities in other countries.
I note that we have a robust order. You are welcome to call it "the Swedish Model", but it is a model that we have reason to be proud of in our democratic state of law. If there are deficiencies in the legislation or in our supervisory authorities that need to be rectified, I would gladly receive a concretization in that part so that I, in such cases, know what to dig for. Otherwise, it appears mostly as a general mistrust towards both the regulatory frameworks and the bodies in our state of law. It is concerning to hear such things from Social Democrats, who I nevertheless perceive to be normally quite serious in such matters.
However, there is a serious issue, if I am to make an effort, that Petter Löberg raises, namely the question of our digital sovereignty in relation to other countries. There is no doubt that we have discussed the issue in relation to, for example, China and in relation to other countries, given how the world is developing. It is not a question that is unique to Swedish conditions, but it is discussed to a high degree within the entire EU. It is about how we can, over time, create an increased degree of digital sovereignty on a European basis. That question is serious, important, and much larger than the technical solution.
If we all think about, for example, which cloud services our entire society practically relies on, we see great vulnerabilities. That question is serious and infinitely much larger than the technical solution we are talking about now.
Petter Löberg (S)
Mr. Speaker! The Minister for Justice thinks it is unserious and even conspiracy-theoretical to ask what happened at the Bilderberg Group's meeting. Gunnar Strömmer cannot be unaware of it. It was the Moderates' own house organ, Svenska Dagbladet, that revealed that the meeting between Karp, Thiel, and the Prime Minister took place. And it was Svenska Dagbladet that tried to request information about what was discussed, which was classified.
It is clear that Peter Thiel and Karp are associated with nothing other than Palantir, which we are discussing in this interpellation debate. To say that these are conspiracy theories is something the Minister of Justice should be above.
When it comes to deciding for oneself or taking one's hand away from this issue, I can say that this is a controversial issue throughout the entire world. Do a media search on Palantir, and you will discover that the discussion we are having here today is not a result of the thoughts of a marginal conspiracy-theorizing Social Democratic Member of Parliament. This discussion is being held in every member state in the union.
Denmark is considering leaving the platform for the reason that they are under such heavy pressure from Trump and his comrades, of whom Peter Thiel is one. Europol has done it. In Germany, there are extensive regulatory discussions to avoid exactly this. They know, namely, what the consequences can be of a surveillance society that goes too far, as in old East Germany. They have sad historical experiences in this context.
If I am to summarize this in a pleasant way, I can say that I am at least pleased that the Minister for Justice understands that one might need to have own IT solutions on site. Regardless of whether it is done in the form of managing it in Sweden, in the Scandinavian countries, or at the Europol level, the ambition must be that Sweden should stand on its own feet and not be dependent on those kinds of unsuitable tech giants and their companies.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! The conspiracy theories are, of course, not about the fact that the meetings have taken place. That is a fact. Who has participated in the meetings is also a fact. However, in any case, Petter Löberg said or implied that we had that meeting first, and then the technology landed with the police. At least that was how I perceived what was said earlier. It is undeniably a stretch to take it a few turns further.
I want to emphasize, again, that our authorities are sovereign when it comes to which concrete tools they shall use in their operations. On the other hand, we all, as the government and the Riksdag, have a great responsibility to ensure that the tools they use, regardless of what they are, shall be surrounded by the requirements, the transparency, the control, and the accountability that befits a democratic constitutional state.
It may not have been conspiracy-theoretical, but then I think it was just a sloppy way of expressing mistrust towards the Swedish Model. It has, after all, grown very organically over many decades. I have high confidence in the various organs of our democratic rule of law when it comes to scrutinizing any irregularities – not just in terms of this tool. I also think there are substantive reasons to discuss it. That is not my point.
My point is that we are not going to throw out the whole group of children, I was about to say, with the bathwater. We have a robust democratic rule of law in Sweden. Should it be the case that, when using some technical tool, one comes close to the type of procedure that we have seen horror examples of in other countries, our system will strike. That is, it is not permitted, regardless of whether one uses this tool or other types of tools.
Finally, I still want to emphasize what is a serious discussion regarding our entire continent: digital sovereignty. The question we are talking about today, this tool, is certainly part of that discussion. But it is, as said, a very broad question. Furthermore, it does not only encompass crime fighting but our entire society.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.