Part 10: The Architect of American Fascism: How Stephen Miller Is Building the Authoritarian State

This essay is part of our ongoing series, The Dark Enlightenment: The Gospel According to Power - an investigation into how faith, technology, and ideology merge to justify authoritarian power.

Miller at the Kirk memorial

In late September 2025, Stephen Miller stood at Charlie Kirk’s memorial service and declared: “We are the storm.” The enemies of the movement, he proclaimed, “are nothing. You can build nothing. You can produce nothing.” Miller claimed their lineage “hails back to Athens, to Rome, to Philadelphia, to Monticello,” and concluded: “We are on the side of goodness. We are on the side of God” (Miller, 2025a).

Days later, Miller posted on social media that America faces “a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism” that is “well organized and funded” and “shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general.” The only remedy, he declared, is to “use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks” (Miller, 2025b).

The cognitive dissonance is not accidental. The man proclaiming divine righteousness while calling for state power to “dismantle” his political opponents oversees mass deportations to El Salvador’s CECOT torture facility, where 200 Venezuelan men were sent without hearings or access to legal counsel (Beitsch, 2025). He operates masked federal agents under arrest quotas conducting what observers describe as “mass disappearances” in American cities (Anderson, 2025). When federal judges intervened to stop the CECOT deportations, Justice Department officials discussed telling the courts “f--- you” and the planes took off anyway (Beitsch, 2025). Stephen Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff for policy, and Homeland Security Advisor, demonstrates something more dangerous than a provocateur or ideologue: he is the practical implementer building the infrastructure of fascist governance within the administrative state (Hesson, Mason and Cooke, 2025).

The paramilitary force exists. ICE agents in tactical gear conduct mass arrests. Masked and often unidentified federal officers operate under arrest quotas (Anderson, 2025). Armed National Guard troops deploy to American cities deemed “enemy territory” (Anderson, 2025). These forces operate using surveillance technology built by Peter Thiel’s Palantir, which provides ICE with “almost real-time visibility into immigrants’ movements” as part of the mass deportation program (NPR, 2025). But what makes Miller’s iteration of fascism particularly dangerous is its bureaucratic infrastructure. These forces operate under cover of executive orders, legal memoranda, and inter-agency agreements that provide a veneer of procedural legitimacy to what is fundamentally authoritarian violence. While attention often focuses on Trump’s bombastic rhetoric or the billionaire backers funding political movements, Miller works quietly to build durable systems of oppression that will outlast any single administration.

Throughout this series, we have examined the philosophical justifications for autocracy (Yarvin), the fusion of religious nationalism with state power (Vance), and the construction of surveillance infrastructure (Thiel). Miller represents the culmination: the bureaucrat who translates ideology into operational policy. Where others provide philosophy, technology, or political legitimacy, Miller provides enactment. His immigration policies serve as a laboratory for testing fascist methods in a democratic system, establishing precedents that can be expanded to other populations and contexts. Understanding his role is essential to grasping how fascism arrives through patient bureaucratic work rather than dramatic coups.

The Ideologue as Administrator: Miller’s Path to Power

Stephen Miller’s career reveals a consistent pattern of challenging democratic norms and institutions while accumulating bureaucratic power. At Duke University, Miller gained notoriety defending white lacrosse players accused of rape, writing newspaper columns and appearing on Fox News. This early embrace of provocative conservative positions foreshadowed a career built on pushing boundaries and testing limits (Hesson, Mason and Cooke, 2025). What distinguished Miller from other campus provocateurs was not the extremity of his views, but his evident talent for navigating institutional structures to amplify his influence.

By the time Miller entered the Trump administration in 2017, he had developed a reputation as being obsessed with immigration policy. Republican officials describe him as having “a worldview that he is 100% sure of,” pushing experimental policies that test the bounds of the Constitution (Hesson, Mason and Cooke, 2025). This ideological certainty, combined with bureaucratic competence, makes Miller uniquely dangerous to democratic governance. He does not merely advocate for authoritarian policies; he possesses the administrative skill to implement them and the political protection to survive challenges.

Former Trump administration officials recall that working with Miller was difficult: “It was hard to get a word in edgewise. He’s not very interested in what you think. It’s not a collaborative conversation. If you try to engage, he will talk over you” (Hesson, Mason and Cooke, 2025). This dismissal of dissenting views reflects not just personal rudeness, but a fundamental rejection of the deliberative processes that characterise democratic governance. In democracies, policy emerges from debate, compromise, and consideration of multiple perspectives. Miller’s approach treats such processes as obstacles to be circumvented rather than essential features of legitimate governance.

Miller’s influence extends far beyond his official title. Administration officials privately refer to him using unofficial titles that reveal his true scope of power: “Shadow Sec Def,” “Prime Minister Miller,” “The REAL Attorney General,” “The DHS boss,” “President Miller” (Anderson, 2025). As one of a small group of White House staffers who approve all executive orders, Miller wields immense power over multiple areas of governance, from immigration to civil rights to military deployment (Hesson, Mason and Cooke, 2025). This concentration of power in an unelected official accountable only to the president highlights a fundamental threat to democratic governance.

Miller “called senior homeland security officials so often that they needed a dedicated staffer to talk to him,” and this “direct outreach to agency staffers has carried over into the current administration” (Hesson, Mason and Cooke, 2025). By bypassing traditional chains of command and establishing direct control over multiple agencies, Miller has created a parallel structure of authority based on personal loyalty rather than institutional accountability. Two former officials noted that “the threat of crossing Miller and then getting fired and potentially blacklisted by Trump and his political allies also contributed to his authority” (Hesson, Mason and Cooke, 2025). This culture of fear and retribution corrodes the professional independence that serves as a check on executive overreach in democratic systems.

The result is a White House aide who functions as a shadow cabinet member across multiple departments, who can command federal agencies without formal authority, and who faces no meaningful accountability for his actions. This concentration of unaccountable power in the hands of an ideologically driven loyalist constitutes a hallmark of fascist governance: the elevation of personal authority over institutional process, the replacement of legal accountability with political loyalty, and the transformation of government into an instrument of ideological control rather than public service.

Immigration as Laboratory: Testing the Limits of Democratic Constraints

Miller’s approach to immigration policy reveals a systematic strategy for implementing fascist governance methods within a democratic system. Each policy serves not only its stated purpose, but also as a test of how far fascist tactics can be deployed before triggering effective resistance. The pattern follows the historical fascist playbook: identify a vulnerable population for persecution, implement policies that violate fundamental rights, observe whether democratic institutions can mount effective opposition, and if resistance proves inadequate, expand the methods to other populations and contexts. Immigration serves as the laboratory where the techniques of fascist control are perfected before broader application.

The journey of the dissapeared

The “zero tolerance” family separation policy, which forcibly separated thousands of children from their parents at the border, was not merely cruel but served to test whether the administration could inflict deliberate suffering on vulnerable populations without facing effective accountability. Human Rights Watch documented the lasting psychological harm inflicted on families, with many children never reunited with their parents even years later (Human Rights Watch, 2024). The public outcry was intense, generating widespread condemnation from medical professionals, religious leaders, and international human rights organisations. Yet the policy was modified rather than abandoned, no one was held accountable, and the precedent was established: the administration could deliberately traumatise children for political purposes and survive the backlash.

Nearly one year into Trump’s second term, Miller has instituted a system of immigration arrest “quotas,” ensuring what critics describe as “a regime not mainly of mass deportation, but of mass disappearances and indefinite detention in jails and newly erected camps” (Anderson, 2025). Arrests now occur at routine courthouse check-ins, at churches, outside children’s schools - targeting individuals with no criminal record based solely on immigration status. This expansion of arbitrary state power over a vulnerable population establishes precedents that can be extended to other groups and contexts.

The administration has transformed federal law enforcement into what observers characterise as “masked, nameless, unaccountable secret police, working at the whims of the president and his staff” (Anderson, 2025). This represents a fundamental departure from democratic policing, which requires transparency, accountability, and adherence to legal standards rather than political directives. When law enforcement officers operate without identification, when arrests occur based on quotas rather than probable cause, when detention becomes indefinite rather than subject to judicial review - the rule of law gives way to the rule of power.

The expansion of the immigration detention system creates a network of facilities that operate with minimal oversight and accountability. These camps exist in a legal grey zone, where detainees lack many of the protections afforded to criminal defendants, where conditions are often inhumane, and where oversight is limited. The existence of such facilities normalises the idea that the government can incarcerate people indefinitely without trial, a concept fundamentally at odds with democratic principles, but essential to authoritarian governance.

Subscribe to Notes From Plague Island and join our growing community of readers and thinkers.

CECOT and the Defiance of Judicial Authority

The agreement with El Salvador to house alleged Venezuelan gang members in the notorious CECOT mega prison reveals Miller’s approach to democratic constraints with particular clarity: ignore them. Documents obtained through litigation show that the Trump administration paid El Salvador $4.76 million to detain up to 300 Venezuelan men accused of gang membership in a facility widely known for torture and human rights abuses (Beitsch, 2025). The five-page agreement placed no conditions on the treatment or care of detainees but explicitly barred any U.S. funds from providing legal counsel to the imprisoned men (Beitsch, 2025).

This definitive denial of legal counsel is a direct assault on the fundamental right to due process. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel in criminal proceedings, and while immigration proceedings are technically civil rather than criminal, the denial of any legal representation to individuals being sent to a torture facility reveals the administration’s contempt for basic procedural protections. The message is clear: when the government deems someone undesirable, constitutional protections become optional.

The administration sent roughly 200 Venezuelan men to CECOT without any hearings or due process, many with no criminal history. When a federal judge ordered flights grounded, the planes nonetheless landed in El Salvador. A Justice Department whistleblower later revealed that one attorney appeared to mislead the judge about the flights’ status, and that a senior DOJ official said the department might need to tell the courts “f--- you” if litigation blocked the deportations (Beitsch, 2025).

This episode crystallizes Miller’s fascist methodology. The explicit denial of legal counsel eliminates due process protections. The defiance of court orders establishes executive supremacy over judicial authority. The willingness to mislead judges demonstrates contempt for legal constraints. The outsourcing of detention to torture facilities normalises state violence against designated enemies. Each element represents not a policy disagreement but the implementation of fascist governance: the elevation of executive will above law, the designation of populations outside legal protection, and the use of state power to inflict suffering on those deemed undesirable.

The CECOT agreement also reveals the administration’s strategy for avoiding domestic legal protections: outsource the dirty work. By sending detainees to foreign facilities, the administration attempts to place them beyond the reach of U.S. courts and constitutional protections. This is a form of extraordinary rendition adapted for immigration enforcement, establishing a precedent that could be expanded to other contexts. If the government can send alleged gang members to foreign torture facilities without trial, what prevents it from doing the same to alleged terrorists, political dissidents, or other groups deemed threatening?

Courts have largely rejected the administration’s legal theories. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Trump exceeded the bounds of the law in his use of the Alien Enemies Act - a wartime statute from 1798 - to bypass the judicial system and deport alleged gang members without trial (Beitsch, 2025). Yet the administration continues to push these theories, treating judicial rejection not as a binding constraint but as an obstacle to be sidestepped through alternative strategies. This is a fundamental challenge to the rule of law: if the executive branch can simply ignore unfavourable court rulings, then judicial review becomes meaningless and the separation of powers collapses.

The Surveillance Infrastructure: Palantir as Force Multiplier

Miller’s mass deportation apparatus operates on surveillance infrastructure built by Peter Thiel’s Palantir Technologies, examined in detail in Part 8 of this series. Palantir has secured major federal contracts to provide ICE with what critics describe as an “AI-powered super-database on all Americans” (Reich, 2025). The system provides “almost real-time visibility into immigrants’ movements,” integrating data from multiple sources to create comprehensive profiles that enable predictive enforcement (NPR, 2025). This demonstrates the operational marriage of Thiel’s surveillance capitalism and Miller’s deportation machine.

The technology transforms immigration enforcement from a reactive to a predictive function. Rather than responding to specific violations or criminal activity, ICE agents can now identify, track, and target individuals based on algorithmic predictions about who might be deportable. This predictive capacity enables the arrest quotas documented by Rolling Stone, allowing agents to meet numerical targets by identifying vulnerable populations through data analysis rather than through traditional law enforcement methods. The system makes mass deportations operationally feasible at a scale that would be impossible without such technological infrastructure.

As documented in Part 8, Thiel deliberately named his company after the corrupted seeing stones from Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings - instruments used by Sauron to manipulate and deceive, designed to “distort truth and present selective visions of reality” (Notes From Plague Island, 2025). The symbolism is not accidental. Palantir’s technology provides the Trump administration with selective visibility: comprehensive surveillance of vulnerable immigrant populations while remaining opaque to democratic oversight. The data flows one way, enabling state power while resisting accountability.

This technological infrastructure will outlast the current administration. The databases, the algorithms, the integration of multiple data sources - these are durable systems that future administrations will inherit. Even if political will shifts away from mass deportations, the capacity for surveillance and targeting will remain, available to be activated by future authoritarians. This is why Miller’s work represents not merely harsh immigration policy but the construction of fascist infrastructure: he is building systems of control that will persist regardless of electoral outcomes.

The Fascist Consolidation: Dismantling Democratic Constraints

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has documented how the Trump administration’s overall political project conforms to the model of “executive aggrandizement” - the incremental dismantling of democracy through steady centralisation of power, and undercutting of checks and balances (Carnegie Endowment, 2025). This framework provides a useful lens for understanding Miller’s role in the broader assault on democratic governance. Executive aggrandizement operates at three interrelated levels, all of which Miller’s policies exemplify.

First, establishing the president as supreme within the executive branch through weakened accountability institutions, tightened control over independent agencies, decreased civil service independence, and purges of perceived opponents. Miller came into the second Trump administration “with all of his staffers in place,” and while dozens of NSC officials were fired as part of downsizing, “Miller’s homeland group remained unaffected” (Hesson, Mason and Cooke, 2025). This selective purging creates a bureaucracy divided between professional civil servants and political loyalists, with power concentrated in the latter. The result is an executive branch where independent judgment is punished and loyalty is rewarded, where professional expertise is subordinated to political objectives, and where the institutional checks that normally constrain executive overreach are systematically dismantled.

Second, making the executive branch dominant over other parts of government by defying court orders, criticising judicial rulings, dodging congressional policies, and attacking state governments that resist administration policies. The CECOT deportations demonstrate this dynamic perfectly: when courts intervened, the administration simply ignored them. When Congress failed to provide funding for border walls, the administration redirected military construction funds. When state governments refused to cooperate with immigration enforcement, the administration threatened to withhold federal funding. Each action presents a challenge to the separation of powers, testing whether other branches of government can effectively constrain executive action.

Antoher day at CECOT

Third, weakening societal constraints on executive power by attacking independent media, punishing oppositional lawyers, constraining civic organisations, undermining voting rights, and pursuing widespread retribution against critics (Carnegie Endowment, 2025). Miller has been “a prominent voice on many of the president’s other priorities, including countering diversity initiatives and targeting transgender rights” (Hesson, Mason and Cooke, 2025), demonstrating how the assault on democratic norms extends beyond immigration to encompass civil rights more broadly. The pattern is consistent: identify groups that lack political power, target them with policies that violate established norms, and use the precedents established to expand executive authority.

The Carnegie study notes that compared to other cases of democratic backsliding, the Trump administration “has carried out its political program with striking speed” and “has sought to centralize power with greater momentum and rapidity,” working “to weaken such checks across multiple levels all at once” (Carnegie Endowment, 2025). Miller’s bureaucratic efficiency accelerates this fascist transformation, translating ideology into implemented policy faster than democratic institutions can respond. Where historical fascist movements required years to consolidate power, Miller is attempting to accomplish the same transformation in months, exploiting the administrative state’s capacity for rapid policy implementation to build fascist governance structures before effective resistance can organise.

This rapidity creates a particular challenge for democratic resistance. Institutions designed to respond to gradual change struggle to address simultaneous assaults on multiple fronts. Courts can strike down individual policies but face difficulty addressing systemic patterns. Congress can investigate specific abuses but lacks the capacity to confront comprehensive strategies. Civil society organisations can mobilise against particular outrages but struggle to maintain sustained resistance across multiple issue areas. Miller’s approach exploits these limitations, overwhelming democratic defences through sheer volume and speed.

Weaponising Federal Law Enforcement

Tactics developed in immigration enforcement are now being tested for broader application across American society. The use of unidentified federal agents, the establishment of arrest quotas divorced from actual criminal activity, and the deployment of armed National Guard troops to American cities deemed “enemy territory” all represent the expansion of Miller’s enforcement model to domestic policing (Anderson, 2025). This transformation of law enforcement from a mechanism for upholding laws into a tool for political control represents a fundamental departure from democratic governance.

In democracies, police serve the law and the Constitution. Officers are identifiable and accountable. Arrests require probable cause rather than quotas. Force is proportionate to the threat. Oversight mechanisms ensure compliance with legal standards. These principles distinguish democratic policing from authoritarian control. Miller’s approach systematically undermines each principle, creating a model of law enforcement better suited to authoritarian governance than democratic accountability.

The use of unidentified federal agents is particularly troubling. When officers lack identification, accountability becomes impossible. Citizens cannot file complaints against specific individuals. Media cannot track patterns of abuse. Courts cannot hold particular officers responsible for violations. The result is a form of policing where the state’s agents are anonymous and unaccountable, where citizens face armed authority without knowing who is exercising power over them or under what legal authority.

The establishment of arrest quotas transforms law enforcement from a reactive to a proactive function. Instead of responding to crimes, officers must generate a certain number of arrests regardless of criminal activity. This creates perverse incentives: officers are rewarded for making arrests rather than for maintaining public safety, for meeting numerical targets rather than for exercising professional judgment. When applied to immigration enforcement, this produces the “mass disappearances” observers have documented. When expanded to other contexts, it threatens to transform all of American policing into a quota-driven system where the goal is control rather than justice.

The deployment of National Guard troops to American cities characterises the militarisation of domestic law enforcement. The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits the use of military forces for domestic law enforcement, reflecting the founders’ concern that military power could be used to suppress dissent and control civilian populations. While the National Guard operates under different rules than active-duty military, the deployment of armed troops to cities deemed “enemy territory” reveals the administration’s willingness to treat American citizens as hostile populations requiring military control, rather than fellow citizens deserving protection.

The Authoritarian Playbook: A Recognizable Pattern

Miller’s approach follows a recognizable pattern documented in cases of democratic backsliding around the world. Scholars of authoritarianism have identified common strategies that leaders use to consolidate power while maintaining a democratic facade. Miller’s policies exemplify this playbook with remarkable fidelity.

First, identify a vulnerable population that can be targeted with minimal political cost. Immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants, serve this function perfectly. They lack voting rights and thus cannot punish the administration electorally. They face language barriers and resource constraints that limit their ability to organise resistance. They are often viewed with suspicion or hostility by segments of the native-born population. These characteristics make immigrants an ideal target for testing authoritarian methods.

Second, use that population as a laboratory for testing authoritarian methods. Family separation tested whether the administration could inflict deliberate cruelty without facing removal from office. The CECOT deportations tested whether court orders could be defied. The expansion of detention camps tested whether mass incarceration infrastructure could be built in plain sight. The use of arrest quotas tested whether law enforcement could be transformed into a political tool. Each test provides information about the limits of democratic resistance and the possibilities for expanding authoritarian governance.

Third, establish precedents that normalise those methods. Once family separation has occurred without triggering removal from office, the precedent is established that such cruelty is permissible. Once court orders have been defied without consequences, the precedent is established that judicial review is optional. Once detention camps have been built without effective opposition, the precedent is established that mass incarceration is acceptable. These precedents then serve as justification for future actions: if we could do X to immigrants, why can’t we do it to other groups?

Fourth, expand the methods to other populations and contexts. The tactics developed in immigration enforcement - unidentified agents, arrest quotas, indefinite detention, defiance of courts - are now being tested for broader application. The infrastructure built for immigration control - detention camps, surveillance systems, enforcement mechanisms - can be repurposed for other uses. The precedents established in immigration cases - executive supremacy, judicial impotence, bureaucratic autonomy - can be invoked in other contexts.

Fifth, consolidate power by eliminating institutional checks on executive authority. The assault on the professional civil service through DOGE, the defiance of judicial authority in the CECOT case, the circumvention of congressional oversight through executive orders - all serve to concentrate power in the executive branch and eliminate the checks and balances that constrain authoritarian governance.

We are currently somewhere between the third and fourth stages. The precedents have been established. The expansion is beginning. The question is whether democratic institutions can mount effective resistance before the consolidation becomes irreversible. The answer to that question will determine not just the fate of immigrants or other vulnerable populations, but the future of democratic governance in America.

The Architect of American Fascism

Stephen Miller’s true danger lies not in his ideology, which is shared by many, but in his bureaucratic competence combined with fascist objectives. He understands how to navigate administrative procedures, how to exploit legal ambiguities, how to coordinate across agencies, how to insulate policies from judicial review, and how to build institutional structures that outlast individual administrations. He is the architect of American fascism, building its infrastructure not with rallies and rhetoric, but with executive orders, legal memos, and inter-agency agreements. He is creating fascism adapted to the administrative state, no less dangerous for its bureaucratic veneer.

This is a distinctive threat to democracy. Demagogues can be voted out of office. Ideologues can be marginalised through debate. But fascist infrastructure, once established, proves remarkably durable. The detention camps Miller has built will not disappear when Trump leaves office (that is, if he/they ever leave). The precedents for defying court orders will remain available to future presidents. The transformation of law enforcement into instruments of political control will persist. The normalisation of state violence against designated populations will continue. The infrastructure of fascism, once constructed, becomes part of the permanent landscape of governance, ready to be activated by future authoritarians.

Franklin D. Roosevelt warned in 1938: “If American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land” (Eco, 1995). Miller’s work reveals that fascism grows not only through democracy’s failures, but through systematic construction of fascist infrastructure by those who have captured democratic institutions from within.

If Miller’s precedents become normalised, his methods become standard, his structures become permanent, then American democracy will have been replaced by fascism through the patient work of a bureaucrat. Miller understands that the most effective way to build fascism is from within, using democracy’s own procedures as tools. Be under no illusion: fascism is being built in America, one administrative procedure at a time. The architecture is taking shape. The question is not whether the threat is real - Miller’s record makes that undeniable - but whether democratic institutions retain capacity to resist before transformation becomes irreversible.

These are dark days. Time is short. Resistance is a necessity.

Or support us with a one-off tip → Buy Me a Coffee

References

Anderson, S. (2025) ‘Stephen Miller Is Leading Donald Trump’s Reign of Terror’, Rolling Stone, 14 September. Available at: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/stephen-miller-trump-terror-ice-immigration-military-1235426023/ [Accessed: 5 October 2025].

Beitsch, R. (2025) ‘Litigation reveals details of Trump deal with El Salvador to imprison Venezuelan migrants’, The Hill, 9 September. Available at: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5493750-cecot-legal-counsel-ban/ [Accessed: 5 October 2025].

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (2025) U.S. Democratic Backsliding in Comparative Perspective. Available at: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/08/us-democratic-backsliding-in-comparative-perspective?lang=en[Accessed: 5 October 2025].

Eco, U. (1995) ‘Ur-Fascism’, The New York Review of Books, 22 June. Available at: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism [Accessed: 5 October 2025].

Hesson, T., Mason, J. and Cooke, K. (2025) ‘The White House aide driving Trump’s aggressive immigration agenda’, Reuters, 11 July. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/white-house-aide-driving-trumps-aggressive-immigration-agenda-2025-07-11/ [Accessed: 5 October 2025].

Human Rights Watch (2024) ‘US: Lasting Harm from Family Separation at the Border’, 16 December. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/16/us-lasting-harm-family-separation-border [Accessed: 5 October 2025].

Notes From Plague Island (2025) ‘Part 8: The Palantir’s Gaze: How Peter Thiel’s Anti-Democratic Vision Shapes Trump’s Surveillance State’. Available at: https://www.plagueisland.com/p/part-8-the-palantirs-gaze-how-peter [Accessed: 8 October 2025].

NPR (2025) ‘Former Palantir workers condemn company’s work with Trump administration’, 5 May. Available at: https://www.npr.org/2025/05/05/nx-s1-5387514/palantir-workers-letter-trump [Accessed: 8 October 2025].

Reich, R. (2025) ‘Peter Thiel’s Palantir poses a grave threat to Americans’, The Guardian, 30 June. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/30/peter-thiel-palantir-threat-to-americans [Accessed: 8 October 2025].

Previous Articles in Series

Part 1: The Dark Enlightenment Lens: Understanding the Slow Strangulation of Democracy. Available at: https://www.plagueisland.com/p/the-dark-enlightenment-lens-understanding

Part 2: The Shadow of Christian Nationalism: J.D. Vance, the Vice Presidency, and the Threat to Pluralism. Available at: https://www.plagueisland.com/p/the-shadow-of-christian-nationalism

Part 8: The Palantir’s Gaze: How Peter Thiel’s Anti-Democratic Vision Shapes Trump’s Surveillance State. Available at: https://www.plagueisland.com/p/part-8-the-palantirs-gaze-how-peter