The UN food agency helping Palestinians and others in need across the world has come under scrutiny for its contract with Palantir –  the controversial US tech and AI company used by various international border police and militaries to sort data and better identify targets.

The UN’s food agency, the World Food Programme (WFP), prolonged its contract with Palantir in July, prompting civil organisations to urge the end of these agreements in a letter published on Friday (23 October).

Some 3,000 European citizens have written to the WFP’s leadership, calling for the agency to end its Palantir partnership.

The WFP holds one of the biggest biometric databases in the world, with millions of its records containing information about vulnerable populations.

WFP is effectively supporting a company that undermines its own operations in Palestine by helping kill civilians for another client, which is “a very strong contradiction,”  Giulio Carini, head of campaigns at an NGO WeMove Europe told EUobserver.

“On one hand, you’re feeding people of Gaza, but then, but on the other, you’re using software from a company whose technology is allegedly also being used to kill them” he added.

As many as 1.1 million people are reached by the WFP in Gaza each month, out of the 1.4 million facing acute food insecurity. The organisation is complaining that it had to scale down its food assistance in Gaza and the West Bank due to a lack of funding.

The WFP has argued that its use of Palantir’s software to compile its datasets and make better decisions has saved them $50m [€45m] that would otherwise be spent on inefficient management of its resources.

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

Incumbent president Iliana Yotova is leading Bulgaria’s 2026 presidential election race, alongside her running mate, Kiril Vulchev, securing 47.3 percent support among likely voters, according to a poll released on Wednesday (21 October).

Andrei Gyurov, a former caretaker prime minister, and his running mate, Georgi Kandev, rank second with around 30 percent. Leaving the pro-Russian Kostadin Kostadinov and Petar Volgin is in third place on just over ten percent.

Bulgaria is voting on Sunday (25 October) and the vote can be seen as “a test of the government’s stability”, according to Ivaylo Iliev, a political scientist, with whom we analyse Bulgarian presidential elections in three points.

1. A test of the government’s stability

The election could consolidate political influence around prime minister Rumen Radev, or expose the limits of his camp’s support.

The PM’s Progressive Bulgaria, which secured a parliamentary majority in April 2026, is facing criticism over its budget plans and handling of security threats. Recent attacks on merchant vessels in the Black Sea have raised questions about Bulgaria’s ability to protect its interests and reassure its allies.

Iotova, who served as Radev’s vice-president for nine years, is closely associated with the prime minister. And her victory could be interpreted as an endorsement of the governing camp.

“Radev has his candidate in these elections and he is obviously the favourite to win a second round,” Iliev says.

However, the Black Sea attacks have “definitely negatively affected both” Iotova’s campaign and public confidence in the government’s security response, he adds.

The government’s response, alongside its nuanced position on Russia’s war against Ukraine, may appeal to voters sceptical of confrontation with Moscow. At the same time, it also risks complicating Bulgaria’s relations with its European and Nato partners.

“Radev demonstrates two different types of behaviour”, says Iliev.

On the domestic front, he is “balanced”, “vague” or even “without specifics”, Iliev says. For Radev does not want “to cause discontent among his pro-Russian voters”.

On the foreign policy however, Radev is more seeking to get as close as possible to the European consensus, but “with a minimal effort.”

2. Taking the government to account?

The second question is whether the presidency can act as a counterweight to the executive or will reinforce the same centre of political influence.

Gyurov’s campaign has warned against putting “all the eggs in one basket”. Concentrating power around Radev and Iotova could weaken independent scrutiny he says.

A Gyurov victory could give the presidency a more “independent voice”, says Iliev.

However, institutional checks and balances do not necessarily translate into electoral support.

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership