Alex Bores wasn’t just another bureaucrat. As a newly appointed AI regulator, he proposed rules that would have forced companies like Palantir and OpenAI to disclose training data, model weights, and military integration plans. Within weeks, coordinated political attacks emerged - funded by executives tied to both firms.
According to reporting on The Daily, the backlash against Bores intensified after his legislation gained traction in Congress. The effort was not grassroots. Leaked donation records show six-figure contributions from three individuals: Palantir’s Alex Karp, OpenAI co-founder Ilya Sutskever, and a director at Founders Fund linked to Peter Thiel. All had publicly opposed regulatory scrutiny.
"Karp views opponents as subhuman obstacles to technological dominance."
- Harry Halpin, Bitcoin Takeover Podcast
The campaign framed Bores as an anti-innovation zealot. Attack ads aired in swing districts painted him as a bureaucrat stifling life-saving AI. But insiders say the real threat was Bores’ push to audit AI systems used in defense and surveillance - a direct challenge to Palantir’s core business.
This isn’t just about one regulator. As Harry Halpin argued on Bitcoin Takeover, the fusion of Silicon Valley and the military-intelligence apparatus is now the dominant force in tech. Karp’s book, The Technological Republic, openly calls for automated weapons and total population surveillance - a vision that cannot survive public oversight.
"The prosecution of Roman Storm is a direct assault on the right to build private systems."
- Christopher Cialone, Bitcoin Takeover Podcast
Bores’ treatment mirrors what developers like Amir Taaki and Roman Storm have faced. The state no longer bothers with due process - it uses watchlists, travel harassment, and proxy attacks through allies. When the target is a regulator, the weapon is money. When the target is a coder, it’s prison.
The message is clear: challenge the AI-security complex, and you will be isolated, smeared, or silenced. Bores’ case proves the system would rather destroy a rule-maker than allow accountability.
