CAMPAIGN ARTWORK: THE GLOBAL TECH POWER NETWORK. The connection arcs depicted are conceptual illustrations of an investigative framework — they do not represent documented relationships between specific parties.

DSC INVESTIGATIONS / GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY & STATE POWER

TECHNOLOGY WITHOUT BORDERS: WHO CONTROLS THE TRANSFER OF POWER?

The technology industry is global by design. Semiconductors, software, satellites, cloud infrastructure, and capital move across borders faster than any single regulatory system can oversee them.

Some of the most powerful American technology companies maintain extensive commercial relationships with foreign governments. Some build systems their own government depends on. Some do both at the same time.

TECHNOLOGY WITHOUT BORDERS is Digital Sovereignty Coalition's investigation into that overlap: foreign commercial exposure, defense and intelligence contracts, technology transfer, political influence, ownership concentration, and constitutional accountability.

The investigation begins from a principle, not a presumption. Commercial reach across borders is not evidence of disloyalty, and government contracts are not evidence of improper influence. Every finding must be independently verified before it is presented as established.

01 — THE PERMANENT FRAMEWORK

SIX LENSES. ONE STANDING INVESTIGATION.

Every case file on this page is examined through the same six lenses. The framework is permanent: new subjects join the investigation without rewriting its foundations.

01FOREIGN COMMERCIAL EXPOSUREWhere a company's revenue, manufacturing, supply chains, market access, or joint ventures depend on foreign governments — and what leverage those dependencies could create.

02DEFENSE AND INTELLIGENCE CONTRACTSWhat a company sells to its own government and to allied governments: weapons-adjacent systems, intelligence tooling, cloud infrastructure, and military AI — with contract ceilings never equated with actual expenditure.

03TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERWhether hardware, software, models, data, expertise, or manufacturing capability has moved between jurisdictions in ways that affect national security — established from primary records, not inference.

04POLITICAL INFLUENCEDocumented campaign contributions, lobbying, advisory positions, and personnel movement between industry and government — examined across parties and administrations, with no unlawful conduct presumed.

05OWNERSHIP CONCENTRATIONWho ultimately owns and controls the platforms, media properties, and infrastructure at issue — and where decision-making authority actually resides when public institutions become dependent.

06CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITYWhat each documented relationship means for democratic oversight, due process, privacy, and the public's ability to govern technologies its own institutions helped create.

02 — INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATIVE CASE FILES

THE SUBJECTS. THE QUESTIONS. THE RECORDS.

Each case file below is a separate investigation with its own evidence record. Subjects are listed as matters under examination — inclusion on this roster is not a finding.

Company activity is distinguished from personal activity throughout. Where public contracts or foreign engagements belong to a corporation, the individual's specific ownership, management, or governance relationship is itself a subject of investigation — not an assumption.

03 — EVIDENCE STANDARDS

FIVE TIERS. ONE RULE: VERIFY BEFORE YOU PUBLISH.

Every statement in this investigation must sit in exactly one of five tiers. Nothing moves between tiers without a dated primary source.

01Established facts require dated primary sources: official filings, contracts, regulatory records, court documents, or agency publications.
02Documented allegations are presented as allegations, attributed to their specific source, with the subject's denial or response carried alongside.
03Company denials and responses are recorded verbatim where they exist — never summarized into agreement or dismissal.
04Investigative hypotheses are labeled as hypotheses and never blended into factual reporting.
05Unresolved questions are stated as questions, with the evidence that would resolve them identified.
06No assertion is published on the strength of anonymous reporting alone; unverified reporting is omitted entirely rather than hedged.

04 — THE TRANSFER QUESTION

WHAT COUNTS AS A TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER?

Technology transfer is the most consequential — and most easily overstated — category in this investigation. DSC treats it as a narrow, evidentiary question.

For this investigation, a technology transfer means documented movement of hardware, software, models, source material, data, technical expertise, or manufacturing capability between jurisdictions or entities in a way material to national security or public oversight.

Commercial sales are not automatically transfers. Licensing is not automatically leakage. A shared supply chain is not automatically exposure. Each proposed connection must be traced through contracts, export records, regulatory filings, or documented corporate disclosures before it is described as a transfer at all.

Connections that cannot yet be traced remain open questions in the relevant case file — never assertions.

STATEMENT ON ISRAEL, PALANTIR, AND NORTH KOREA

DSC does not assert, and this investigation does not claim, that Israeli or Palantir technology has been transferred to North Korea. No independently verified evidence supporting such a transfer has been reviewed for this page. The connection arcs in the campaign artwork are conceptual illustrations of the investigative framework — they are not findings, and they will not be treated as findings unless dated primary records establish them.

05 — THE SOURCE ARCHITECTURE

AN EVIDENCE-FIRST CITATION FOUNDATION

USAspending.gov and federal procurement records
SAM.gov contract and registration records
SEC filings and full-text search
FEC political contribution records
Senate Office of Public Records lobbying disclosures
Government Accountability Office reports
Inspector General and congressional oversight records
Export-control and licensing decisions published by responsible agencies
Court documents and regulatory dockets
Corporate annual reports and official statements
Patent databases
Reputable investigative reporting, cited with dates

USAspending.govhttps://www.usaspending.gov/SAM.govhttps://sam.gov/SEC EDGAR full-text searchhttps://www.sec.gov/edgar/search/Federal Election Commissionhttps://www.fec.gov/Senate Office of Public Records (LDA filings)https://lda.senate.gov/Government Accountability Officehttps://www.gao.gov/United States Patent and Trademark Officehttps://www.uspto.gov/

Links to general portals are research resources, not evidence supporting any allegation on this page.

Every material factual claim must carry a dated, traceable citation before it is presented as established.

Contract ceilings are never equated with actual government expenditure.

HOW NEW CASES JOIN

This page is built to grow without being rewritten. A new subject joins the investigation when credible evidence identifies a relevant technology company or executive; the new case file then follows the same template, the same five evidence tiers, and the same six-lens framework as every case already here. No foundational text changes when the roster expands.

06 — CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY

BORDERLESS TECHNOLOGY. ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT.

The constitutional question is not whether companies operate globally — they will. It is whether American public institutions retain the capacity to govern what their own resources and dependencies make possible.

Democratic oversightDefense, intelligence, and infrastructure systems built by private companies must remain subject to lawful congressional and inspector-general oversight.

Due processAutomated and AI-assisted systems used in consequential government decisions require legal safeguards regardless of which contractor provides them.

PrivacyCross-border data flows and foreign commercial relationships must not become a route around civil-liberties protections.

Transparency in procurementThe public should be able to see, through open records, who sells what to its government — and at what actual cost.

Editorial independenceConcentration of media ownership inside technology-owning families raises questions the public is entitled to see examined, not settled by assertion.

Public sovereigntyEssential public functions must not become ungovernable because the infrastructure beneath them is privately held and borderless.

No specific violation is claimed without documented legal support. These are the standards the investigation measures against.

07 — THE QUESTION WITHOUT BORDERS

Technology, capital, and government interest now move through the same networks, and those networks do not stop at any border.

That reality is neither inherently corrupt nor inherently safe. It is a structural condition of the modern economy — and it demands evidence, not slogans.

Digital Sovereignty Coalition will follow the records: the contracts, the filings, the licensing decisions, the testimony, and the denials, wherever they lead.

Who controls the transfer of power?

Digital Sovereignty Coalition investigates that question in the interest of technological innovation, constitutional accountability, and the Plurality of Digital Sovereignty.

DSC.NYC

RELATED INVESTIGATIONS