Alex Bores Ice funding
Executive summary
Alex Bores is publicly on record opposing and even supporting abolition of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), while his résumé and critics draw a straight line to Palantir — a company with longstanding ICE contracts that Bores worked for and says he left over those contracts — creating the political flashpoint that spawned attack ads and legal letters from a pro‑AI super PAC [1] [2] [3]. Reporting does not show evidence that Bores personally “funded” ICE; instead the controversy centers on whether his work at Palantir materially supported Palantir’s ICE business and whether he profited from ICE contracts — claims Bores disputes and has pushed back on legally and publicly [3] [4].
1. The claim at issue: did Alex Bores fund or financially enable ICE through his work?
The central accusation circulating in campaign ads and PAC mailers is that Bores “built and sold the tech for ICE” and made “hundreds of thousands” from enabling their deportations, a claim the Bores campaign says is false and sent a cease‑and‑desist to the super PAC behind the ad (Think Big / Leading the Future) demanding disclosure of his Palantir work and compensation [3] [5]. Independent reporting and Bores’ own public statements repeatedly note that he worked at Palantir for several years and left in 2019 when the firm renewed a contract with ICE — but none of the provided sources prove he personally worked on or profited from the ICE contract itself [6] [7] [4] [2].
2. What Bores and his defenders say: he left Palantir over ICE and didn’t do immigration work
Bores has told reporters and public audiences that he resigned from Palantir over the company’s renewal of its ICE relationship, and has asserted that he never worked on the ICE contract and declined to include immigration work on a separate DOJ project he did work on [6] [3]. Profiles in City & State, TIME, and WIRED describe his departure as tied to discomfort with Palantir’s work with ICE and note his technical background and subsequent focus on AI policy — but those pieces also recount that Palantir’s relationship with ICE predated and outlived his tenure [2] [7] [6].
3. What critics and the pro‑AI industry say: the optics and the attack strategy
Industry‑backed groups and political opponents have seized on Bores’ Palantir history to argue he profited from enabling enforcement technology; a $100 million pro‑AI super PAC funded by firms and figures with stakes in AI and Palantir’s ecosystem has publicly targeted him for authoring AI regulation, framing his Palantir past as hypocrisy [5] [6] [8]. Those attacks serve dual purposes: to weaken a regulator pushing AI guardrails and to question the moral consistency of a candidate who now supports abolishing ICE despite earlier work at a contractor that did business with the agency [8] [1].
4. Context: Palantir’s documented ICE work and the wider funding question
Palantir’s contracts with ICE are publicly reported and have been a subject of scrutiny for years, with coverage noting the company’s work with different DHS components and ongoing debates about which Palantir products were used by which ICE divisions [1] [9]. Forbes and other outlets list Palantir among firms holding major ICE contracts, which is the structural fact that underpins all political attacks, but that does not itself prove Bores personally worked on or directly benefited from those government contracts [9] [1].
5. The evidentiary bottom line and reporting limits
Available reporting establishes three verified points: Bores worked at Palantir for several years and left when Palantir renewed ICE work [6] [4]; Palantir has contracts with ICE and other DHS components [1] [9]; and a well‑funded pro‑AI super PAC has attacked Bores over the overlap of his past employer and his present policy positions [3] [5]. What the sources do not provide is direct documentary evidence that Bores personally authored, sold, or profited from the specific Palantir systems used by ICE, so definitive claims that he “funded ICE” or personally enabled deportations exceed what the reporting substantiates [3] [4].
6. Political incentives and alternative readings
Reporters and analysts note competing incentives: Bores’ legal and rhetorical distancing from Palantir is consistent with his policy platform on AI and immigration, while the tech‑industry PACs targeting him have clear financial motives to weaken state and federal AI regulation and to defend companies like Palantir — meaning both sides have incentives to shape the narrative beyond the strictly factual record [8] [5]. Given those incentives, transparency — specifically the disclosure the campaign was asked to provide about Bores’ roles, clients, and compensation at Palantir — is the practical remedy reporters and political opponents alike have called for to close the evidentiary gap [3].