Palantir CEO Alex Karp says executives who brag about their AI cuts might as well ‘sign up for the Bernie Sanders manifesto’

Palantir CEO Alex Karp has a message for Silicon Valley executives touting artificial intelligence-driven job cuts: Don’t be surprised if workers—and voters—turn against you. Speaking last week on TBPN, the tech talk show recently acquired by Open AI, the leader of the roughly $325 billion defense contracting and software company warned that corporate leaders need to be more “disciplined” around how they talk about AI and the future of work. “If you run around saying AI allowed you to fire two-thirds of your workforce—because maybe your competitor’s kicking your ass—you might as well just go sign up for the Bernie Sanders manifesto,” Karp said. The jab referenced a growing backlash against the power of major technology firms and fears that artificial intelligence could accelerate job losses. Tech companies have laid off roughly 117,000 employees in 2026 alone—nearly matching the total for all of 2025—with firms including Meta, Snap, and Block pointing to AI as a factor in restructuring efforts. It’s a concern that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has increasingly seized on. The longtime progressive has repeatedly accused major tech firms of prioritizing profits over workers and warned that automation could deepen economic inequality. “If Mark Zuckerberg is willing to lay off 10% of his own employees, what do you think his AI will do to the average American worker?” Sanders wrote in May. The unease comes at a moment when the future of work remains unsettled. Even as tech revenues climb, layoffs have brought more questions about how AI-driven gains will be distributed—a dynamic that could fuel greater support for interventionist economic policies from lawmakers like Sanders and deepen a broader backlash among voters and employees against AI-focused corporate leadership. Karp warns tech leaders are ‘playing with fire’ While Sanders has stopped short of opposing AI outright, the 84-year-old has proposed more aggressive government intervention in the industry—including a