Log in
%PDF-1.7 %���� 1 0 obj << /Metadata 3 0 R /Names 4 0 R /OpenAction 5 0 R /Outlines 6 0 R /PageMode /UseOutlines /Pages 7 0 R /Type /Catalog >> endobj 2 0 obj << /Author (Daniel Zheng; Ingrid von Glehn; Yori Zwols; Iuliya Beloshapka; Lars Buesing; Daniel M. Roy; Martin Wattenberg; Bogdan Georgiev; Tatiana Schmidt; Andrew Cowie; Fernanda Viegas; Dimitri Kanevsky; Vineet Kahlon; Hartmut Maennel; Sophia Alj; George Holland; Alex Davies; Pushmeet Kohli) /Creator (arXiv GenPDF \(tex2pdf:a6404ea\)) /DOI (<a href="https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.06651" rel="nofollow">https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.06651</a>) /License (<a href="http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/</a>) /PTEX.Fullbanner (This is pdfTeX, Version 3.141592653-2.6-1.40.28 \(TeX Live 2025\) kpathsea version 6.4.1) /Producer (pikepdf 8.15.1) /Title (AI Co-Mathematician: Accelerating Mathematicians with Agentic AI) /Trapped /False /arXivID (<a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.06651v1" rel="nofollow">https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.06651v1</a>) >> endobj 3 0 obj << /Subtype /XML /Type /Metadata /Length 2095 >> stream endstream endobj 4 0 obj << /Dests 8 0 R >> endobj 5 0 obj << /D [ 9 0 R /Fit ] /S /GoTo >> endobj 6 0 obj << /Count 8 /First 10 0 R /Last 11 0 R /Type /Outlines >> endobj 7 0 obj << /Count 22 /Kids [ 12 0 R 13 0 R 14 0 R 15 0 R ] /Type /Pages >> endobj 8 0 obj << /Kids [ 16 0 R 17 0 R 18 0 R 19 0 R ] /Limits [ (Doc-Start) (subsection.6.2) ] >> endobj 9 0 obj << /Annots [ 20 0 R 21 0 R 22 0 R 23 0 R 24 0 R 25 0 R 26 0 R 27 0 R 28 0 R 29 0 R 30 0 R 31 0 R 32 0 R 33 0 R 34 0 R ] /Contents [ 35 0 R 36 0 R 37 0 R 38 0 R ] /Group 39 0 R /MediaBox [ 0 0 595.276 841.89 ] /Parent 12 0 R /Resources 40 0 R /Type /Page >> endobj 10 0 obj << /A 41 0 R /Next 42 0 R /Parent 6 0 R /Title 43 0 R >> endobj 11 0 obj << /A 44 0 R /Parent 6 0 R /Prev 45 0 R /Title 46 0 R >> endobj 12 0 obj << /Count 6 /Kids [ 9 0 R 47 0 R 48 0 R 49 0 R 50 0 R 51 0 R ] /Parent 7 0 R /Type /Pages >> endobj 13 0 obj << /Count 6 /Kids [ 52 0 R 53 0 R 54 0 R 55 0 R 56 0 R 57 0 R ] /Parent 7 0 R /Type /Pages >> endobj 14 0 obj << /Count 6 /Kids [ 58 0 R 59 0 R 60 0 R 61 0 R 62 0 R 63 0 R ] /Parent 7 0 R /Type /Pages >> endobj 15 0 obj << /Count 4 /Kids [ 64 0 R 65 0 R 66 0 R 67 0 R ] /Parent 7 0 R /Type /Pages >> endobj 16 0 obj << /Kids [ 68 0 R 69 0 R 70 0 R 71 0 R 72 0 R 73 0 R ] /Limits [ (Doc-Start) (cite.0@li2025lips) ] >> endobj 17 0 obj << /Kids [ 74 0 R 75 0 R 76 0 R 77 0 R 78 0 R 79 0 R ] /Limits [ (cite.0@lin2025goedelproverv2) (page.12) ] >> endobj 18 0 obj << /Kids [ 80 0 R 81 0 R 82 0 R 83 0 R 84 0 R 85 0 R ] /Limits [ (page.13) (subsection.5.3) ] >> endobj 19 0 obj << /Kids [ 86 0 R ] /Limits [ (subsection.6.1) (subsection.6.2) ] >> endobj 20 0 obj << /A << /D (cite.0@polya1954) /S /GoTo >> /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /C [ 0 1 0 ] /H /I /Rect [ 448.343 373.648 456.28 386.141 ] /Subtype /Link /Type /Annot >> endobj 21 0 obj << /A << /D (cite.0@epstein1992) /S /GoTo >> /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /C [ 0 1 0 ] /H /I /Rect [ 459.633 373.648 467.569 386.141 ] /Subtype /Link /Type /Annot >> endobj 22 0 obj << /A << /D (cite.0@lewkowycz2022minerva) /S /GoTo >> /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /C [ 0 1 0 ] /H /I /Rect [ 254.116 285.579 262.277 298.071 ] /Subtype /Link /Type /Annot >> endobj 23 0 obj << /A << /D (cite.0@taylor2022galactica) /S /GoTo >> /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /C [ 0 1 0 ] /H /I /Rect [ 457.6 285.579 465.761 298.071 ] /Subtype /Link /Type /Annot >> endobj 24 0 obj << /A << /D (cite.0@zimmer2026agentic) /S /GoTo >> /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /C [ 0 1 0 ] /H /I /Rect [ 469.316 285.579 483.645 298.071 ] /Subtype /Link /Type /Annot >> endobj 25 0 obj << /A << /D (cite.0@feng2026) /S /GoTo >> /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /C [ 0 1 0 ] /H /I /Rect [ 452.034 272.029 465.915 284.522 ] /Subtype /Link /Type /Annot >> endobj 26 0 obj << /A << /D (cite.0@romeraparedes2024) /S /GoTo >> /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /C [ 0 1 0 ] /H /I /Rect [ 231 258.48 244.941 270.973 ] /Subtype /Link /Type /Annot >> endobj 27 0 obj << /A << /D (cite.0@novikov2025) /S /GoTo >> /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /C [ 0 1 0 ] /H /I /Rect [ 248.967 258.48 262.909 270.973 ] /Subtype /Link /Type /Annot >> endobj 28 0 obj << /A << /D (cite.0@cemri2026adaevolve) /S /GoTo >> /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /C [ 0 1 0 ] /H /I /Rect [ 401.679 258.48 415.621 270.973 ] /Subtype /Link /Type /Annot >> endobj 29 0 obj << /A << /D (cite.0@lange2025shinkaevolve) /S /GoTo >> /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /C [ 0 1 0 ] /H /I /Rect [ 419.001 258.48 432.942 270.973 ] /Subtype /Link /Type /Annot >> endobj 30 0 obj << /A << /D (cite.0@hubert2025) /S /GoTo >> /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /C [ 0 1 0 ] /H /I /Rect [ 252.392 231.382 266.382 243.874 ] /Subtype /Link /Type /Annot >> endobj 31 0 obj << /A << /D (cite.0@song2024leancopilot) /S /GoTo >> /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /C [ 0 1 0 ] /H /I /Rect [ 354.872 231.382 368.862 243.874 ] /Subtype /Link /Type /Annot >> endobj 32 0 obj << /A << /D (cite.0@deltredici2025axprover) /S /GoTo >> /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /C [ 0 1 0 ] /H /I /Rect [ 372.264 231.382 386.254 243.874 ] /Subtype /Link /Type /Annot >> endobj 33 0 obj << /A << /D (cite.0@harmonic2025aristotle) /S /GoTo >> /Border [ 0 0 0 ] /C [ 0 1 0 ] /H /I /Rect [ 150.607 217.833 164.973 230.325 ] /Subtype /Link /Type /Annot >> endobj 34 0 obj << /A << /S /URI /URI (<a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.06651v1" rel="nofollow">https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.06651v1</a>) >> /BS << /W 0 >> /NM (fitz-L0) /Rect [ 12 251.52503 32 590.365 ] /Subtype /Link >> endobj 35 0 obj << /Length 10 /Filter /FlateDecode >> stream x�+� � | endstream endobj 36 0 obj << /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 4110 >> stream xڥZݓ���_1/�@�����㻋/q��ΕT�v��3�0v6}�K|-��ڪ! ����n��h���H~��vj��Фzg�(�������gad�H���IC&S=%j����I�^�����Y>�����Wߨ�s�ݛw�8KC�F"ޔ����tDIY��7ߍGa�-������ Ek>lj��Fo�v%�}��<�}���]l���;�~������H�Ӱ�V r⨈U�tƜܽ��+��~`�6x]uu*��W��o� �����đw��WG_E^����Y����\�`6��y��Ps��P�e�t�Zȑ)��
|
Strategic Initiatives
|
* **Workflow Support:** the system supports ideation literature search computational exploration theorem proving theory building and native mathematical artifacts
* **Agent Architecture:** a project coordinator delegates work to parallel workstreams with specialized agents shared files and internal messaging
* **User Interaction:** mathematicians can steer ongoing work refine goals inspect details and intervene when agents stall
* **Uncertainty Handling:** failed hypotheses reviewer objections version history margin notes and unresolved issues are preserved and surfaced
* **Early Results:** limited release users reported useful outcomes on open problems stirling coefficient conjectures and hamiltonian systems
* **Benchmark Results:** the system scored forty eight percent on frontiermath tier four and exceeded gemini three point one pro in reported evaluations
* **Limitations:** risks include flawed reviewer consensus endless revision loops hallucinated reasoning loss of user control and increased burden on peer review
LLM (google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-20260507) summary:
- Diagnostic Broadening: mental health diagnoses are surging primarily due to expanded criteria rather than actual illness.
- Financial Incentives: current federal mandates reward clinicians for frequent diagnoses and pharmaceutical interventions over alternative care.
- Supplier Induced Demand: healthcare spending in mental health has tripled while population outcomes have failed to improve.
- Subjective Limitations: psychiatry lacks objective biomarkers leading to the pathologization of ordinary human distress.
- Uncontrolled Experimentation: widespread prescription of psychiatric drugs to young developing brains carries unknown long term risks.
- Prescribing Cascade: economic structures encourage adding supplemental drugs to manage side effects rather than reducing previous prescriptions.
- Administrative Bias: billing codes favor rapid pharmacological additions while providing minimal reimbursement for the time required to taper medications.
- Systemic Reform: current policy mandates prioritize volume over efficacy and require fundamental restructuring to incentivize therapeutic rather than chemical interventions.
By
Adam Omary
May 10, 2026 1:56 pm ET
Facebook
TwitterHealth Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced an initiative last week to reduce the overprescribing of psychiatric medications, especially among children. In what’s being called a national mental-health crisis, psychiatric diagnoses in almost every category are reaching all-time highs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that autism now appears in 1 in 31 children, a 381% increase since 2000. Childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder diagnoses nearly doubled between 1997 and 2022. Childhood anxiety diagnoses rose 54% between 2016 and 2022. Past-year prevalence of any mental illness among adults reached 23.1% in 2022, with young adults at 36.2%.
But much of the supposed surge in mental illness can be explained by a broadening of the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic criteria in recent decades and financial incentives for diagnosing more. The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, extended by the Affordable Care Act in 2010, required health plans to cover mental-health services at parity with medical and surgical care. That addressed a genuine inequity in coverage, but made it so clinicians are paid more when they diagnose more cases.
The result is what economists call supplier-induced demand. Ideally, increased spending on mental-health care would yield better mental-health outcomes. Instead we have seen the opposite. Between 2000 and 2021, mental-health care spending in the U.S. more than tripled, from $40 billion to $140 billion, while mental-illness rates grew almost as dramatically.
Defenders of mental-health parity argue that spending and diagnoses are rising to meet previously unmet needs. But psychiatry is more subjective than other branches of medicine. No objective cutoff distinguishes ordinary worry from clinical anxiety, or grief from clinical depression. Findings are prone to distortion under the influence of nonpsychiatric factors.
When the National Institute of Mental Health says that half of all American adolescents have experienced mental illness, that isn’t psychiatry advancing as a field. It’s the result of various incentives for pathologizing ordinary struggle.
Wasteful spending and panic over a possibly nonexistent mental-health crisis would be bad enough. But psychiatric overdiagnosis creates an even more serious problem: overmedication. Roughly 1 in 6 American adults, an estimated 44 million people, are now on antidepressants. In young adults, those numbers are even higher. Thirty percent of college students take psychiatric medication, up from 9% in 2007.
For adults with mental conditions resistant to therapy, psychiatric medication can be effective. But we don’t understand the long-term consequences of many psychiatric drugs, particularly on young brains. We are running a large uncontrolled experiment on the developing brains of millions of young people, and we won’t know the full results for decades.
Meanwhile, the reimbursement architecture makes overmedication practically inevitable. Once a patient is on a drug, side effects are often addressed with a second drug rather than with a reassessment of the first. Clinicians call this the “prescribing cascade”: An antidepressant causes insomnia, so a sleep aid is added; a stimulant causes irritability, so a mood stabilizer follows. Each new prescription generates a billable visit, while tapering a patient off an ineffective drug takes time, monitoring and follow-up, which the billing system frequently doesn’t reimburse. Adding a prescription is the fastest, most reimbursable response at every stage of care.
The new HHS initiative rightly recognizes the harms of overprescription and the potential for negative side effects from long-term psychiatric medication in young people. It includes new reimbursement for clinicians who help patients taper off drugs, a “Dear Colleague” letter urging informed consent and regular reassessment, and a technical expert panel to develop formal tapering guidelines this summer.
These are sensible steps, but they don’t address the root cause. The fundamental problem is that federal law created an incentive structure that makes psychiatric medication the default for tens of millions of Americans who might be better served by therapy, lifestyle intervention or no clinical intervention at all.
To get physicians to stop overprescribing, the institutions that shape their choices should offer a greater reward for prescribing sparingly. In addition to new billing codes for deprescribing, what’s needed is a serious examination of whether the coverage mandates and reimbursement structures the ACA put in place are producing the outcomes they promised.
The mental-health system has improved over the past half-century. Effective treatments are more widely available, and people are more willing than ever to seek help. But the same mandates that have increased access to mental-health care have made overdiagnosis and overmedication the path of least resistance for a generation of clinicians and patients.
Mr. Omary is a psychologist and a research fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.
Free Expression: A Daily Newsletter From WSJ Opinion
Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Videos
LLM (google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-20260507) summary:
- Legal Confrontation: sam altman testified in a trial regarding allegations from elon musk of charitable breach and unjust enrichment.
- Financial Claims: musk is seeking nearly two hundred billion dollars in damages and the removal of altman from his chief executive role.
- Alleged Manipulation: altman refuted claims that he stole a nonprofit entity while highlighting his pride in the development of openai.
- Control Disputes: evidence presented suggests musk initially requested ninety percent equity in the company citing his own fame as the primary justification.
- Donation Context: court data revealed that musk provided twenty-eight percent of early funding with other prominent donors contributing significant capital.
- Cultural Criticisms: altman argued that the presence of musk damaged the organizational culture by imposing unsustainable performance expectations on researchers.
- Structural Transition: the defense asserted that the pivot to a for-profit structure was a necessary maneuver to acquire the massive computing resources required.
- Potential Conflicts: the proceedings highlighted that while altman lacks direct equity he maintains major financial ties to other tech startups linked to the lab.
Updated May 12, 2026 1:00 pm ET
Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI Manuel Orbegozo/ReutersOpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman has taken the stand in the third and likely final week of Elon Musk’s blockbuster trial that could shape the future of artificial intelligence.
Altman kicked off his testimony by addressing Musk’s bold declaration at the start of the trial that Altman “stole” a charity.
“It feels difficult to even wrap my head around that framing,” he said. “I’m very proud of the work that’s been done…I hope as OpenAI continues to do well, the nonprofit will do even better.”
Musk is suing OpenAI and Altman for breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment, claiming that the AI-lab giant manipulated him into giving tens of millions of dollars when it was a nonprofit, only for Altman to turn it into a for-profit company.
Remedies that Musk is asking the courts to grant include removing Altman as CEO, among other requests, as well as up to $180 billion in damages to be paid out from OpenAI’s for-profit arm to its nonprofit parent.
A revolving cast of the most important figures in Silicon Valley have testified in the Oakland, Calif., federal courthouse in the last two weeks, including a three-day testimony from Musk and a two-day testimony from OpenAI President Greg Brockman.
Others who have taken the stand under oath include Shivon Zilis, former OpenAI board member and current romantic partner to Musk; Jared Birchall, longtime fixer for Musk; Microsoft Chief Executive Satya Nadella; and Ilya Sutskever, prominent AI scientist and OpenAI co-founder.
Altman is expected to make the case to nine jurors that Musk wasn’t only initially supportive of OpenAI’s for-profit conversion but that he also requested unilateral control. OpenAI has called this lawsuit “Elon’s latest variant” in his efforts to slow OpenAI down and boost his own AI company, xAI, which is now owned by SpaceX.
The OpenAI CEO testified on Tuesday that during early discussions to make a for-profit entity, Musk suggested he should have 90% of the equity, even though he was spending much less time on OpenAI than Brockman and Sutskever at the time.
According to Altman, Musk made the case that he should get majority control because he was “the most well-known.” Altman recalled Musk saying, “If I make one tweet about this, it’s instantly worth a ton.”
Altman also sought to contextualize—and undermine—Musk’s contributions to OpenAI. Musk testified that he donated $38 million to OpenAI. During Altman’s testimony, a chart flashed on TV screens in the courtroom, showing other donors and gifts made to OpenAI between 2015 and 2020, including $30 million from Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and $20 million from Gabe Newell, a game developer. In total, Musk’s gifts made up 28% of all donations received in those five years.
Altman also testified on Tuesday that Musk’s involvement had done “huge damage to the culture” of the AI lab, which included ranking engineers and scientists.
“For a research lab where people need psychological safety and long periods of time to pursue an idea, this idea that you constantly have to show your results, and if they’re not good enough for a short period of time you’re gonna get fired, that really didn’t work for the kind of research we went on to successfully do,” said Altman.
OpenAI has argued that it was necessary to convert to a for-profit company to secure the funding needed for computing resources, an issue Sutskever discussed Monday.
The OpenAI CEO’s business conflicts are also expected to come up during his testimony.
While Altman doesn’t currently own equity in OpenAI, he owns substantial stakes in startups that have signed major deals with the AI lab. Startups that Altman is a major investor in which are expected to come up include Helion, a nuclear-fusion company.
Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Angel Au-Yeung is a finance and technology reporter for The Wall Street Journal in San Francisco. She covers business leaders, startups and Silicon Valley culture. She has won several national awards for her work, including investigations into a Russian billionaire's ownership of dating app Bumble, the final months of the late former CEO of Zappos Tony Hsieh and the downfall of crypto-trading firm FTX.
She is the co-author of "Wonder Boy: Tony Hsieh, Zappos and the Myth of Happiness in Silicon Valley," which was named one of the best business books of 2023 by the Financial Times and described by the New Yorker as "mandatory reading for anyone who is interested in big tech."
Up Next
Videos
LLM (google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-20260507) summary:
- Corporate Collusion: google and spacex are negotiating partnership terms for rocket launches to facilitate orbital data center expansion.
- Market Speculation: spacex is leveraging unproven orbital data center technology as a central narrative for its upcoming public listing.
- Platform Dependency: google is exploring alternative launch providers while remaining financially entangled as a significant shareholder in spacex.
- Project Suncatcher: the search giant intends to initiate satellite-based data testing by 2027 through a collaborative venture with planet labs.
- Resource Arbitrage: the push for space-based computing claims to circumvent terrestrial constraints regarding land and energy availability.
- Engineering Skepticism: industry experts continue to doubt the practical viability of the proposal due to complex technical and architectural hurdles.
- Balance Sheet Manipulation: heavy infrastructure spending and aggressive consolidation are being employed to inflate company valuation ahead of the market entry.
- Service Offloading: spacex is renting out excess computing capacity to competitors like anthropic even as it promotes its own internal data-center ambitions.
Updated May 12, 2026 12:07 pm ET
Elon Musk says orbital data centers are the next frontier for his rocket company. Matt Rourke/Associated PressGoogle GOOGL -0.83%decrease; red down pointing triangle is in talks with SpaceX for a rocket-launch deal as the search giant expands its own efforts to put orbital data centers in space, according to people familiar with the discussions.
A launch deal would put the two companies in partnership as they gear up to compete on orbital data centers, an unproven technology that SpaceX Chief Executive Elon Musk has said is the next frontier for his rocket company.
Google is also in discussions about a potential deal with other rocket-launch companies, one of the people said.
The speculative technology has been at the center of SpaceX’s pitch to investors ahead of its planned public listing this summer, which is anticipated to be the largest IPO of all time.
Last year, Google announced its own plans to launch prototype satellites by 2027 as part of a moonshot initiative called Project Suncatcher. It’s working with another company, Planet Labs, to build those satellites.
“We’ll send tiny racks of machines and have them in satellites, test them out, and then start scaling from there,” Google CEO Sundar Pichai said in a Fox News interview in November. “There’s no doubt to me that a decade or so away, we’ll be viewing it as a more normal way to build data centers.”
Google was an early investor in SpaceX and owns 6.1% of the company, according to a regulatory filing. Google executive Don Harrison sits on the board of SpaceX.
SpaceX didn’t respond to a request for comment.
SpaceX is the leading commercial launch provider, which means anyone looking to launch satellites has to weigh working with the company.
The company last week announced a deal to sell Earthbound computing resources to the AI company Anthropic. As part of the agreement, Anthropic expressed interest in working with SpaceX on orbital data centers. Earlier this year, SpaceX filed an application with a federal regulator to launch up to a million satellites for its orbital data-center ambitions.
Many industry leaders see orbital computing as a solution to the limitations of Earthbound data centers, which require swaths of land and power. These data centers are designed to be powered by solar panels, eliminating the power constraint faced by data centers on Earth, and one of the major ecological issues with the emerging technology. But there are also major engineering challenges that have made some industry experts skeptical about their feasibility.
SpaceX made its name as the world’s leading private launch provider, sending NASA astronauts to the space station and launching thousands of satellites as part of its Starlink internet constellation. It also sends satellites to space for paying customers.
As it prepares to go public, SpaceX has struck a number of deals that have rewritten its balance sheet. Some helped Musk consolidate his companies, including its acquisition of xAI, which valued the combined company at $1.25 trillion. SpaceX also announced a close partnership with the AI coding startup Cursor. As part of the deal, SpaceX secured the option to acquire Cursor for $60 billion later this year. It has separately announced billions of dollars in planned infrastructure spending.
For its deal with Anthropic, SpaceX will supply 300 megawatts of new computing capacity, using more than 220,000 Nvidia GPUs, by the end of May.
Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Becky Peterson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for The Wall Street Journal, where she covers Tesla and Elon Musk from New York. She previously reported for the Information covering Musk's greater empire, including rocket company SpaceX and AI startup xAI. She started her career at Business Insider covering tech, M&A and venture capital from San Francisco.
Becky was part of the Journal team that won the 2025 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for coverage of Musk. She also has been recognized by the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing for her work covering Tesla, Google and the tech IPO market at the Information.
She graduated from New York University with a master's degree in media, culture and communication, and the University of California, Davis with degrees in philosophy and technocultural studies.
Berber Jin covers startups and venture capital out of the Wall Street Journal's San Francisco office. His articles focus on the money and people powering Silicon Valley, with a recent focus on artificial intelligence. He previously covered the same topic for the Information, where he won a Best in Business award from the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing.
Berber is originally from Scarsdale, N.Y., and graduated from Stanford University.
Up Next
Videos
LLM (google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-20260507) summary:
- Legal Settlement: a private individual secured a six figure payment from the federal government to resolve a lawsuit regarding alleged first amendment violations.
- Administrative Admission: the state purportedly acknowledged acting coercively toward social media companies to suppress specific viewpoints.
- Strategic Pivot: the legal focus now shifts from the government to corporate entities including pfizer executives and a board member.
- Constitutional Claims: a narrative is being constructed around the supposed right of unvaccinated groups to constitutional protections against speech interference.
- Corporate Allegations: private actors are accused of orchestrating a conspiracy by influencing white house officials to remove content from digital platforms.
- Appellate Ambition: judicial validation is being sought at the second circuit level to revive discovery requests and access internal communications.
- Financial Solicitation: continuous appeals for monetary support from the public are being made to sustain ongoing litigation against private pharmaceutical companies.
- Heroic Narrative: an grandiose internal framing depicts a personal quest for truth despite the perceived indifference of traditional media institutions.
Goodbye Berenson v (Joe) Biden.
Hello Berenson v (Albert) Bourla.
Today, the Trump Administration and I settled the federal government’s role in Berenson v Biden, my lawsuit against Biden Administration and Pfizer officials for violating my Constitutional rights and forcing Twitter to ban me in summer 2021.
After three hard-fought years, this settlement marks a massive win in my fight to hold the government and Pfizer accountable for their conspiracy to silence me. I could not have done it without your support. (Or Elon Musk’s.)
The agreement includes a six-figure payment and a statement “the Government did in fact violate the First Amendment by exerting substantial coercive pressure on social media companies such as Twitter to suppress disfavored speech like Plaintiff’s.”
James Lawrence, my (very able) lawyer, and I believe this settlement marks the first time any individual American has received a cash payment to resolve a lawsuit over government coercion of social media companies.
More importantly, the government’s admission may prove crucial as my suit moves ahead against its remaining defendants, Pfizer board member Dr. Scott Gottlieb and chairman Dr. Albert Bourla.
I am pleased the Trump administration recognized the Biden White House’s violations of my rights and chose to settle with me despite my recent criticism of Trump. At least in my case, the White House is practicing what it preaches on the First Amendment. A thank-you is in order.
—
(I will never, never, NEVER stop fighting for the First Amendment and the truth. Join me.)
—
The battle is won. But the war is not over.
While the settlement releases the government from the case, it leaves us open to pursue Bourla and Gottlieb for their role in the conspiracy. That conspiracy was not just against me, but against all unvaccinated people who were reading and listening to me as the Biden Administration prepared to force mRNA jabs on healthy adults.
And we are pushing ahead, by asking the federal Second Circuit of Appeals in New York City to find Covid unvaccinated people deserve the same First Amendment protections as a group as many other disfavored groups do.
—
(Scott Gottlieb does his Scott Gottlieb thing. Yes, he was talking about me. Somehow he forgot to mention in this email that he was getting paid by company that sold about $100 billion in mRNA jabs. Oops!
Todd O’Boyle was Twitter’s top White House lobbyist in 2021. You can smell the swamp fumes from here. Or maybe that’s just Gottlieb’s hair oil.)
—
The settlement came on the eve of the government’s deadline to file a response to our appeal, after Judge Jessica G.L. Clarke dismissed our lawsuit last fall.
Our complaint contained ample evidence Gottlieb worked with Biden administration officials to force Twitter to ban me in 2021, even as Twitter’s most senior executives questioned if I had done anything to violate the platform’s terms of service. Bourla contacted top officials at the same time, including a White House meeting with Ron Klain, Biden’s chief of staff.
In fact, it was Gottlieb’s direct appeal to Twitter’s White House lobbyist over my famous Aug. 28, 2021 “It doesn’t stop infection” tweet that led directly to my ban.
In general, private companies and individuals cannot directly violate First Amendment rights. But a federal law known as 1985(3) gives plaintiffs the right to sue in federal courts over conspiracies that keep them from “having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.”
Federal courts have generally construed 1985(3) narrowly. But the conspiracy between Gottlieb, Bourla, and the federal government in 2021 is clearly the type of behavior for which the statute creates liability.
—
(I hope so much that one day I’ll get to see Pfizer and Scott Gottlieb try to defend banning me over this tweet to a jury. Even a New York jury.)
—
The question James Lawrence and I will ask the Second Circuit to answer is not whether federal or state governments may require vaccinations. It is whether unvaccinated people have the same rights to speak to each other as people who are vaccinated.1 And the government’s acknowledgement in its settlement that it did in fact violate those First Amendment rights makes my case stronger.
If we win at the Second Circuit, our lawsuit will be alive back in front of Judge Clarke. And we will get the discovery about the communications between the White House and Pfizer in summer 2021 I have been fighting to see for three years.
If we lose at the Second Circuit, we’ll go to the Supreme Court and try there.
Three years in, the fight has only begun.
But today is a good day. A very, very good day. The mainstream media might even have to take notice (though I’m not counting on it).
—
(And any day is a good day to subscribe! Catch up on the paywalled history of Berenson v BidenBourla)
—
Note: that six-figure settlement should cover us through the Second Circuit appeal.
But hopefully we will soon be back before Judge Clarke, fighting Pfizer for depositions, discovery, and the chance to get to a jury.
And over the last four years, beginning with Berenson v Twitter, I’ve realized many of you give because you want to stand with me in this fight.
If that’s how you feel, you can still donate:
You can also Venmo me at Alex-Berenson-3
Or send a check to James Lawrence at Envisage Law, PO Box 30099
Raleigh, North Carolina 27622
Donations of all sizes welcome — this is about standing together.
We have other arguments too, including whether Gottlieb and Bourla interfered with my contract with Twitter, but this one is the most important legally and constitutionally.
- Participation decline: A total of five nations, including the Netherlands and Iceland, have withdrawn from the 70th Eurovision Song Contest, resulting in the lowest participation count of 35 countries since 2004.
- Geopolitical tensions: The official withdrawal of multiple countries follows mounting controversy regarding Israel's military operations in the Gaza Strip.
- Media assertions: Broadcasters and external organizations have voiced allegations concerning the manipulation of televoting systems and restrictions on journalistic access to conflict zones.
- Alternative programming: Public broadcasters in Slovenia, Ireland, and Spain are replacing standard Eurovision coverage with independent national programming, including thematic specials and sitcoms.
- Institutional criticism: Advocacy groups have challenged the European Broadcasting Union for its decision to permit continued Israeli participation, citing perceived disparities in policy enforcement compared to other geopolitical exclusions.
- Contested claims: International entities remain divided on the characterization of the situation in Gaza, with official investigations alleging genocide while the Israeli government maintains a vehement denial of these accusations.
The three countries, along with the Netherlands and Iceland, pulled out of this year's event in Vienna, which kicks off on Tuesday and culminates in Saturday's grand final.
Controversy has mounted over the conduct of Israel's war in the Gaza Strip.
Suspicions have been raised that the televoting system was being manipulated to boost Israel at Eurovision 2025 in Basel, Switzerland. Some broadcasters also raised concerns about media freedom, with Israel preventing their journalists from accessing Gaza.
"Instead of the Eurovision circus, the national television programme will be coloured by the thematic programme series 'Voices of Palestine'," Slovenian broadcaster RTV said.
During Thursday's second semi-final, Ireland's RTE will be showing "The End of the World with Beanz", featuring 1993 Eurovision winner Niamh Kavanagh in Norway experiencing life as a reindeer herder.
And during the final, it will screen a Eurovision-themed episode of the popular 1990s Irish-made sitcom "Father Ted".
Spain's RTVE will run its own musical special, "The House of Music".
Public service broadcasters in the Netherlands and Iceland will screen the competition, despite both pulling out.
This year is the 70th anniversary of the Eurovision Song Contest, and the Austrian capital is pulling out all the stops to host the world's biggest live televised music event.
Only 35 countries will take part in the show -- the fewest since entry was expanded in 2004 -- following the five withdrawals.
First held in 1956, Eurovision is run by the European Broadcasting Union, the world's biggest alliance of public-service media.
Amnesty International said that the EBU's failure to suspend Israel from Eurovision, as it did with Russia following its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, was "an act of cowardice and an illustration of blatant double standards".
Israel's participation "offers the country a platform to try to deflect attention from and normalise its ongoing genocide in the occupied Gaza Strip", Amnesty's secretary general Agnes Callamard said in a statement.
"Songs and sequins must not be allowed to drown out or distract from Israel's atrocities or Palestinian suffering."
A UN-backed probe in September determined that "genocide is occurring in Gaza" - something Israel vehemently denies.