• Xu Bo's surrogacy ambitions: Chinese gaming billionaire sought parental rights for multiple US-born surrogacy children, aiming for 20 boys to inherit business, but judge denied due to parenting concerns.
• Court hearing details: Xu appeared via video from China, admitted not meeting kids raised by nannies in Irvine, as work was busy.
• Trend among Chinese elites: Billionaires like Xu and Wang Huiwu use US surrogates for large families; Wang created 10 girls from models' eggs hoping they marry powerful men.
• US surrogacy industry response: Agencies, clinics, nannies cater to Chinese clients remotely for up to $200k per child; some handle dozens of simultaneous surrogacies enthusiastically.
• Regulatory gaps: Limited oversight allows multiple agencies for one parent; industry recommends max two simultaneous but lacks enforcement.
• Legal and political scrutiny: US birthright citizenship debates, Trump order, Sen. Scott bill to ban some foreigners; FBI/DHS probe Chinese-linked cases.
• Chinese context: Surrogacy illegal domestically, gov criticizes ethically; some officials implicated, celebrities fined amid scandals.
• Xu's claimed achievements: Social media accounts linked to Xu report over 100 US surrogacy children, successful appeals regaining some despite initial denial.

A Chinese billionaire was seeking parental rights to at least four unborn children, and the court’s additional research showed that he had already fathered or was in the process of fathering at least eight more—all through surrogates.

When Pellman called Xu Bo in for a confidential hearing in the summer of 2023, he never entered the courtroom, according to people who attended the hearing. The maker of fantasy videogames lived in China and appeared via video, speaking through an interpreter. He said he hoped to have 20 or so U.S.-born children through surrogacy—boys, because they’re superior to girls—to one day take over his business.

Several of his kids were being raised by nannies in nearby Irvine as they awaited paperwork to travel to China. He hadn’t yet met them, he told the judge, because work had been busy.

Pellman was alarmed, according to the people who attended the hearing. Surrogacy was a tool to help people build families, but what Xu was describing didn’t seem like parenting, the people said.

The judge denied his request for parentage—normally quickly approved for the intended parents of a baby born through surrogacy, experts say. The decision left the children he’d paid for to be born in legal limbo.   

The court declined to comment on Xu’s case. 

Xu, an online megaposter but real-life recluse, has rarely spoken with reporters and hasn’t been photographed in public for nearly a decade. 

A representative of Xu’s company, Duoyi Network, didn’t respond to specific questions about the hearing or Xu’s use of surrogacy. “The boss does not accept interview requests from anyone for any purpose,” the representative said in an email to The Wall Street Journal, adding that “much of what you described is untrue.” The representative, who didn’t provide a name, didn’t respond to repeated requests to clarify what was inaccurate.  

Pellman’s decision in the confidential case, which has never been reported, was a rare rebuke to a little-known trend in the largely unregulated U.S. surrogacy industry: Chinese elites and billionaires who are going outside of China, where domestic surrogacy is illegal, to quietly have large numbers of U.S.-born babies. 

Since U.S. court proceedings for surrogacies are usually private, often taking place without even a mention on the court’s public docket, oversight is limited.

Some Chinese parents, inspired by Elon Musk’s 14 known children, pay millions in surrogacy fees to hire women in the U.S. to help them build families of jaw-dropping size. Xu calls himself “China’s first father” and is known in China as a vocal critic of feminism. On social media, his company said he has more than 100 children born through surrogacy in the U.S. 

Another wealthy Chinese executive, Wang Huiwu, hired U.S. models and others as egg donors to have 10 girls, with the aim of one day marrying them off to powerful men, according to people close to the executive’s education company. 

Xu Bo in an undated photo.

Wang Huiwu seen in 2018. Tan Daming/VCG/Getty Images

Xu Bo, left, in an undated photo. Wang Huiwu seen in 2018. Tan Daming/VCG/Getty Images

Other Chinese clients, usually seeking more typical numbers of babies, are high-powered executives lacking the time and inclination to bear their own children, older parents or same-sex couples, according to people who arrange surrogacy deals and work in surrogacy law. All have the wealth to go outside China while maintaining the privacy needed to manage potential logistical, publicity and legal issues back home. Some have the political clout to avoid censure.

The market has grown so sophisticated, experts say, that at times Chinese parents have had U.S.-born children without stepping foot in the country. A thriving mini-industry of American surrogacy agencies, law firms, clinics, delivery agencies and nanny services—even to pick up the newborns from hospitals—has risen to accommodate the demand, permitting parents to ship their genetic material abroad and get a baby delivered back, at a cost of up to $200,000 per child.

The growing Asian market for international fertility services has drawn the attention of American investors, including Peter Thiel, whose family office has backed a chain of IVF clinics across Southeast Asia and a recently opened branch in Los Angeles.

Most U.S. states don’t bar international parents from working with American surrogates. Chinese law doesn’t strictly prohibit its citizens from going overseas for surrogacy, but officials have criticized it. Stories of Chinese celebrities or government officials working with overseas surrogates have sometimes caused scandal among the public at home, which tends to view surrogacy as ethically dubious and exploitative.

The babies born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens by virtue of the 14th Amendment. The idea of foreign nationals using the Constitution’s guarantee of citizenship has long been a political flashpoint. 

In 2020, the State Department moved to curb so-called birth tourism, tightening visa rules for women suspected of visiting the U.S. to give birth. In January, Donald Trump issued an executive order denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless one of their parents was a citizen or permanent legal resident, which is being reviewed by the Supreme Court. It’s unclear if either regulation would apply to foreigners working with surrogates who are Americans.

Last month, Sen. Rick Scott, the Florida Republican, introduced a bill in the Senate to ban the use of surrogacy in the U.S. by people from some foreign countries, including China. He cited an ongoing federal human trafficking investigation into a Chinese-American couple in Los Angeles who have more than two dozen children, nearly all born through surrogacy within the past four years, as reported by the Journal. 

A federal human trafficking investigation is looking into a Chinese-American couple who have more than two dozen children, nearly all born through surrogacy. Above, their Arcadia, Calif., mansion. Philip Cheung for WSJ

Law enforcement is more broadly looking at some Chinese parents working with American surrogates. Investigators with the FBI and Department of Homeland Security have interviewed some surrogates who have worked with Chinese parents, according to the surrogates, though the purpose of those investigations is unclear. The FBI declined to comment, and DHS didn’t respond to a request for comment. 

‘We’re not Costco’

Nathan Zhang, the founder and CEO of IVF USA, a network of fertility clinics in the U.S. and Mexico that cater to wealthy Chinese and partner with surrogacy agencies, said his clientele in the past were largely parents trying to bypass China’s one-child policy. Babies brought back to China, as U.S. citizens instead of Chinese citizens, fell outside the country’s penalty system. The one-child policy was abolished in 2015.

More recently, a new clientele has emerged. “Elon Musk is becoming a role model now,” said Zhang. An increasing number of “crazy rich” clients are commissioning dozens, or even hundreds, of U.S.-born babies with the goal of “forging an unstoppable family dynasty,” he said.

One wealthy businessman in China, who like Wang is also in the education business, wanted more than 200 children at once using surrogates, envisioning a family enterprise, Zhang said. “I asked him directly, ‘How do you plan to raise all these children?’ He was speechless,” said Zhang, who said he refused him as a client. 

Other surrogacy professionals described similarly head-spinning numbers. The owner of one agency in California said he had helped fill an order for a Chinese parent seeking 100 children in the past few years, a request spread over several agencies. 

A Los Angeles surrogacy attorney said he had helped his client, a Chinese billionaire, have 20 children through surrogacy in recent years. 

ACRC Global, a California surrogacy agency that markets to Chinese and other international clients, had a booth at the Beijing Medical and Health Exhibition in October, which focused on travel to other countries for medical treatment. Gilles Sabrié for WSJ

A slide showing embryos at the Beijing health exhibition. Gilles Sabrié for WSJ

Amanda Troxler, a Los Angeles-based surrogacy lawyer, said her firm consulted with a hopeful Chinese parent who said she wanted eight or 10 surrogacies and asked for a discount. “I was like, ‘No, we’re not Costco,’” said Troxler, who didn’t take the client because she rejects those looking for more than two surrogacies at once.

Oversight of the industry is so scant that it’s almost impossible to figure out whether parents are working with multiple surrogates, across different agencies and law firms, people in the industry said. 

California surrogacy agency owner Joy Millan said she was approached by a single father in China seeking to hire four surrogates. She agreed to connect the father with one, only to learn later that he had gone to another agency to find more.

“When we contacted him saying this is your due date, the baby is on the way, he panicked and was like, ‘We’re already taking care of two babies!’” Millan said. “It’s not like you can’t have four kids, there are families that have four or five, but if you regret, there’s no way back.” 

Industry groups recommend that agencies and IVF clinics not work with parents seeking more than two simultaneous surrogacies, because of the logistical and emotional challenges, and the risk that it will increase the perception that surrogacy commodifies pregnancy. But Millan said the suggestion lacks teeth. The harshest penalty for failing to follow the groups’ recommendations is to be removed as a member.  

Lisa Stark Hughes, a surrogacy agency owner and board member of the Society for Ethics for Egg Donation and Surrogacy, acknowledged the difficulty of ensuring those recommendations are followed. The group has been discussing ways to more proactively detect when parents are pursuing multiple simultaneous surrogacies across different agencies without violating patient privacy laws, she said.

Some agencies don’t hesitate. Hu Yihan, the CEO of New York IVF clinic Global Fertility & Genetics, who helps connect Chinese parents with surrogacy agencies, said that when one of her clients wants three or four simultaneous surrogacies, the reaction is often enthusiastic. “I’m getting positive feedback from the surrogacy agencies, they’re like, ‘This is a big one! I want to do this!’” she said.

Agencies typically receive $40,000 to $50,000 per surrogacy, separately from payments made to the surrogate carriers.

Hu Yihan, the CEO of New York IVF clinic Global Fertility & Genetics, spoke at the Beijing health exhibition. Gilles Sabrié for WSJ

Girls for future world leaders

The Chinese government usually turns a blind eye to citizens who pursue surrogacy abroad, even allowing foreign agencies to quietly market their services at home. Still, Chinese parents who work with surrogates sometimes face blowback.

Liu Pengyu, the spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in the U.S., said in a statement to the Journal that the government’s health authorities believe surrogacy can lead to a number of negative outcomes, including “serious family and social ethical crisis.”

Wang, who fathered the 10 girls through U.S. surrogacies, purchased dozens of eggs from models, a finance Ph.D. and a musician—at a cost of between $6,000 and $7,500 each, according to the people close to his company. He is the president and CEO of Sichuan-based education group XJ International Holdings, formerly known as Hope Education Group, which owns and operates universities and technical colleges. 

Wang preferred girls, the people said, and hoped they would grow up to marry world leaders.

Screenshots purporting to be of messages from a person claiming to share a nanny with Wang, discussing Wang’s use of surrogacy in the U.S., went viral on social media in 2021.

Chinese media criticized the executive, saying that commercial surrogacy exploits women and violates Chinese public order and morals. Shares at Wang’s company plunged around this time. 

XJ International Holdings, which previously dismissed the claims as rumors, didn’t respond to requests for comment. 

Around the start of 2019, Zheng Shuang, an actress and model who briefly signed with Prada, hired two U.S. surrogates with her boyfriend, Zhang Heng.

Before the children were born, the couple’s relationship began to deteriorate, and Zheng had second thoughts, according to documents in a Colorado custody suit over the two children after their births. 

Zheng allegedly considered asking one of the surrogates to terminate the pregnancy, but the baby was too far along, according to email correspondence with the surrogacy agency included in the court documents. 

Ultimately, Zhang, the father, flew to the U.S. to attend births in Colorado and Nevada, and stayed in the country to care for the two babies. After he posted on the Chinese social-media site Weibo that Zheng had contemplated seeking abortions, the Chinese Communist Party released a statement criticizing them.

Chinese actress Zheng Shuang, left, and her boyfriend, Zhang Heng, arrive at a Beijing airport in 2019. ImagineChina/Alamy

“For Chinese citizens to exploit legal loopholes and flee to the United States simply because surrogacy is prohibited in China is by no means abiding by the law,” the statement from the party’s Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission said. 

Zheng was dropped by fashion labels. The couple were investigated for tax evasion; she was ordered to pay a nearly $46 million fine and he was fined $5 million in the tax case. Zhang, the boyfriend, eventually received sole parenting responsibility for the children, according to court documents, and went on to co-found a California surrogacy agency focused on Chinese parents.

Even some Chinese government officials have turned to the U.S. for surrogacy, industry lawyers and agencies say. 

Surrogacy was a key component in the scandal surrounding the 2023 disappearance of Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang. Qin, once a trusted aide to Chinese leader Xi Jinping, fell from grace after a Communist Party investigation found that he had been having an affair with prominent newscaster Fu Xiaotian.

Fu had a child in the U.S. via surrogacy in late 2022. While the Chinese government never disclosed the child’s paternity, the incident fueled speculation that Qin was the father and prompted wider scrutiny within the party regarding whether other top officials had used surrogates to have children overseas, according to officials briefed on the matter. Both Qin and Fu vanished from public view when the scandal erupted.

Meanwhile, some older Chinese parents, who were restricted in their younger years by the one-child policy, are looking to surrogacy to expand their families beyond typical child-raising years. 

“Any household that’s middle-upper income, any guy who’s 60 years old, they’re having one-child policy revenge,” said Hu, the New York fertility CEO. “They’re trying to make up for something that they wanted when they were young but it was severely restricted, there was no way out, the tech was not there, the market was not there.”

A man and child walked in a park in Tianmen, China, in March. Gilles Sabrié for WSJ

China in recent years has tried to boost the country’s birthrate. A sign in Tianmen reads, ‘One more child, one more joy.’ Gilles Sabrié for WSJ

Regulatory arbitrage

Researchers at Emory University found that international parents’ use of U.S. surrogacy quadrupled from 2014 to 2019, when IVF clinics started 3,240 cycles for surrogate carriers working with international parents, making up almost 40% of the U.S. total. The number dipped during the pandemic amid global travel restrictions. Of international parents between 2014 through 2020, 41% were from China.

Some investors are betting those numbers will continue to rise. In 2018, Jinxin Fertility Group, based in Sichuan and publicly traded in Hong Kong, purchased HRC Fertility, a chain of fertility clinics in Southern California whose doctors already had a substantial Chinese client base. 

Jinxin partnered with a U.S. surrogacy consultant in 2020, according to a corporate filing. Wang Bin, Jinxin’s chairman between 2018 and 2021, had previously been a high-ranking official at Chinese state-owned enterprises, and the company’s investors have included state-owned banks. 

Jinxin didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The family office of Thiel, who voiced concerns about falling birthrates on Joe Rogan’s podcast last year, has participated in two fundraising rounds totaling $30 million for Rhea Fertility to open a chain of international fertility centers in Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines focused on Asian parents. Rhea CEO Margaret Wang said Rhea, which opened an IVF clinic in Los Angeles late last year, targets parents interested in what she called “regulatory arbitrage” to access fertility and surrogacy services that may be illegal in their home countries.

“The U.S. remains the destination for people who have the resources and need to go down that path,” Wang said. A representative of Thiel Capital didn’t respond to a request for comment.

‘50 high-quality sons’

Xu, the Chinese online gaming billionaire, has for years broadcast his ambitions to build a sprawling dynasty of children.

On Weibo, accounts linked to Xu have written that “Having more children can solve all problems” and fantasized about Xu’s children marrying Elon Musk’s children.

Another, earlier Weibo account verified as being operated by Xu wrote in 2023 that he hoped to have “50 high-quality sons.” 

That same year, Judge Pellman denied Xu’s parentage petition in Los Angeles. But a later post on one of the Weibo accounts linked to him said he successfully appealed.

“Xu Bo had several children (all of mixed Chinese and Jewish descent) who were taken away in the United States due to sabotage by feminists and malicious rulings by a female judge,” the account posted in April 2024, seeming to refer to the confidential hearing that Xu had attended the year before. “Later, appeals were filed, and all the cases that went to trial were won. I heard that another case was won today, and one child was awarded to Xu Bo; he has already received the child.” 

The user has denied being Xu, but a Journal analysis linked this and another Weibo account to him. Xu’s company’s Weibo account has reposted one of them, and the accounts shared details of the confidential U.S. court hearing attended by Xu, a cropped photo of Xu’s passport, photos and videos of Xu’s children and other personal documents. The children are shown in the company of nannies or in daycare-like settings eating meals, playing or reciting homework assignments.

Accounts linked to Xu on Weibo have posted multiple videos showing groups of children greeting the person with the camera with cries of ‘Daddy.’ Above, a video in 2022 was captioned, ‘Imagine a bunch of babies rushing towards you—how does that feel? Take a look. Besides your loved one, what’s cuter than children?’

The Journal couldn’t find any public records of Xu appealing the judge’s decision. Such an appeal would normally be public in Los Angeles.

Surrogacy attorneys say it is possible that if Xu were denied parental rights in Los Angeles courts, he could have tried filing the same paperwork in a different jurisdiction—choosing from among the locations of the surrogate, the IVF treatment or the baby’s birth. Courts in different jurisdictions don’t necessarily have visibility into parentage applications filed elsewhere.

Last month, Xu’s ex-girlfriend, Tang Jing, alleged in a post on Weibo that he had 300 children, living across numerous properties in multiple countries. Xu has previously accused Tang of theft and the two have ongoing lawsuits. Tang didn’t respond to requests for comment.

In a statement on Weibo at the time, Duoyi Network said the 300 figure was wrong but confirmed a stunning fact: “After many years of effort” through surrogacy in the U.S., Xu has “only a little over 100” children.

Later in November, the user linked to Xu posted a video of more than a dozen toddler or early grade-school-age children playing on an outdoor patio in an unknown location. “What the truth is, everyone can see for themselves,” the user posted. 

As the camera panned around the patio, the children—who appeared to be mostly boys—began running toward it. “Daddy!” they yelled. “Daddy!”

Write to Katherine Long at katherine.long@wsj.com, Ben Foldy at ben.foldy@wsj.com and Lingling Wei at Lingling.Wei@wsj.com

The Business of Fertility

WSJ coverage, selected by editors

The Mystery of the L.A. Mansion Filled With Surrogate Children

Surrogacy Is a Multibillion-Dollar Business. Sometimes the Money Goes Missing.

The Tactics Elon Musk Uses to Manage His ‘Legion’ of Babies—and Their Mothers

Genetically Engineered Babies Are Banned. Tech Titans Are Trying to Make One Anyway.

Inside Silicon Valley’s Growing Obsession With Having Smarter Babies

A Couple Wagers Time, Hope and $300,000 on a Quest for Children

They Needed a Surrogate, So They Asked a Sibling to Do It

• NIH Original Mission: Founded in 1887 as one-room laboratory to perform biomedical research enhancing health, lengthening life, reducing illness and disability for Americans.
• Scientific Approach: Scientists over 100 years turned discoveries into better health, uniting all Americans regardless of race, color or creed.
• DEI Introduction: Over last decade and half, mission corrupted by diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) ideology across hiring, promotion, training, reviews, communications, management and science.
• Funding Shift: Decisions moved from scientific to political goals, requiring DEI statements from NIH scientists and grant applicants as loyalty oaths.
• Reviewer Selection: Scientific reviewers chosen based on DEI criteria; funding decision-makers received bonuses for promoting DEI.
• Diversity Supplements: End-of-year supplements to universities for training programs based partly on scientists' race rather than ability.
• 2022 Initiative: Funding announced for universities to conduct system-wide DEI audits addressing shortcomings in structural racism.
• Impact on Scientists and Institutions: Scientists promised racial goals for funding; policy drove DEI requirements like loyalty oaths for university hiring and promotion.

Since the National Institutes of Health was founded as a one room laboratory in 1887 its mission was simple; perform biomedical research to enhance health, lengthen life and reduce illness and disability for Americans. Scientists for more than one hundred years have taken this scientific approach to turn discoveries into better health. This mission unites all Americans of every race, color and creed. Everyone wants science that benefits their health.

Over the last decade and a half this mission has been corrupted by a new mission and ideology: diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). This political ideology was reflected in all aspects of the NIH, including hiring practices, promotion and tenure, employee training, performance reviews, communications, management and, yes, even science.

For its entire history NIH funding decisions were made to reach scientific goals. DEI drove decisions to be made to reach political goals instead, requiring NIH scientists to write DEI statements – de facto loyalty oaths – and researchers outside the NIH applying for grants to write plans for enhancing “diverse perspectives” (another name for a DEI statement). Scientific reviewers were chosen based on DEI criteria, and those making funding decisions received bonuses for promoting DEI.

At the end of every fiscal year, NIH program officers handed out “diversity supplements” to universities, directing money to training programs based partly on scientists’ race, rather than their scientific ability. In 2022, the NIH announced funding for universities to conduct “system-wide” DEI audits to address “shortcomings” in addressing “structural racism.”

Scientists learned that the best way to maximize their chance of a slice of NIH money was to promise that their work would help achieve racial nirvana, however remote from utopian ideological pursuits the proposed work actually was. Most scientists obsequiously complied to avoid the risk of career harm, whether they were true believers or not.

NIH policy was fundamental in the DEI-ification of the nation’s top universities and research centers. Even before the fevered days of 2020, when the mania for DEI at universities reached a fever pitch, scientists were often required to write DEI loyalty oaths to be hired or promoted.

• New Kindle Feature: Amazon has introduced "Ask This Book," an AI-powered tool for the Kindle iOS app, designed to answer reader questions about their books.
• Functionality: Users can highlight passages in their Kindle library and ask questions about plot details or characters without leaving the app.
• Availability: The feature is currently available for "thousands" of bestselling English-language books, with plans to expand to physical Kindles and Android in 2026.
• Author Opt-Out: Authors and publishers cannot opt out of this feature, as it is designed to be "always on" for a consistent reading experience.
• AI Concerns: The tool's operation lacks transparency regarding licensing rights and technical details, raising concerns about potential AI hallucinations and the use of book text for AI training.
• User Interaction: Readers can access "Ask This Book" via the in-book menu or by highlighting text, with options to use suggested questions or type custom queries, including follow-up questions.
• Recaps Feature: Kindle is also rolling out a "Recaps" feature, similar to TV show recaps, to provide quick summaries of storylines and character arcs.
• Recaps Access: The Recaps feature is available on physical Kindles and the Kindle iOS app for US users, accessible through series pages or by pressing and holding series groupings.

Whether you’re reading dense, challenging 19th-century classics or the latest thriller, sometimes even the best readers lose track of what’s actually going on, such as who's who or how characters relate to each other.

Now, Amazon is rolling out a new feature via the Kindle iOS app that uses AI to give readers answers about the books in their Kindle library—whether authors choose to opt in or not. Called Ask This Book, the new feature allows users to highlight any passage from a book they’ve bought or borrowed on their iPhone’s Kindle app and ask questions about what they’re reading without leaving the page. For example, it can fill readers in on plot details or explain who certain characters are.

Amazon didn’t disclose exactly how many books the feature is currently available for, but said “thousands” of bestselling English-language books have been enabled. The company said the feature will roll out to physical Kindle devices and Android in 2026, though no firm date was given.

You May Also Like

However, the tech giant has provided few details about how the new feature actually works, and the tool could prove controversial in today’s hotly contested AI-copyright environment. In an interview with publishing-industry magazine PubLunch, spotted by book site Reactor, an Amazon spokesperson said: “To ensure a consistent reading experience, the feature is always on, and there is no option for authors or publishers to opt titles out.”

Amazon also reportedly failed to answer PubLunch’s questions about what licensing rights it is using to enable the new tool, adding: “nor did they elaborate on the technical details of the service and any protections involved.” For example, it’s not clear how Amazon plans to prevent AI hallucinations, or whether the text could be used for AI training by large language models.

(Credit: Amazon )

If you’re interested in trying the feature anyway, head to Ask This Book in the in-book menu, or simply highlight any passage as you read. You can then tap one of the suggested questions or type your own to get answers from Amazon’s new tool—and keep the conversation going with follow-up questions.

Recommended by Our Editors

[

](/picks/which-amazon-kindle-is-right-for-you)

The Best Amazon Kindle for 2025

[

](/news/amazon-tells-bookworms-to-buy-a-black-and-white-kindle-over-its-color-ereaders)

Amazon: Reading Experience Is the Same Across All Kindle Devices

[

](/picks/best-tech-gifts-for-readers)

A Bookworm's Digital Delight: The Best Tech Gifts for Readers

In another potential plus for forgetful readers, Kindle is also introducing a Recaps feature. Amazon says this works much like the “Previously on…” segment before a TV show, providing a quick refresher on storylines and character arcs in Kindle books you own or have borrowed.

The feature is already available on both Kindle devices and the Kindle app for iOS users in the US. To access it on a physical Kindle, look for the View Recaps button on the series page in your Kindle Library by clicking the three-dot menu within the series grouping. On the Kindle iOS app, the same option appears when you press and hold the series grouping.

Get Our Best Stories!

Your Daily Dose of Our Top Tech News

Sign up for our What's New Now newsletter to receive the latest news, best new products, and expert advice from the editors of PCMag.

Sign up for our What's New Now newsletter to receive the latest news, best new products, and expert advice from the editors of PCMag.

By clicking Sign Me Up, you confirm you are 16+ and agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Thanks for signing up!

Your subscription has been confirmed. Keep an eye on your inbox!

About Our Expert

Will McCurdy

Contributor

Experience

I’m a reporter covering weekend news. Before joining PCMag in 2024, I picked up bylines in BBC News, The Guardian, The Times of London, The Daily Beast, Vice, Slate, Fast Company, The Evening Standard, The i, TechRadar, and Decrypt Media.

I’ve been a PC gamer since you had to install games from multiple CD-ROMs by hand. As a reporter, I’m passionate about the intersection of tech and human lives. I’ve covered everything from crypto scandals to the art world, as well as conspiracy theories, UK politics, and Russia and foreign affairs.

Latest By Will McCurdy

• Not a Big Reader? Google Translate Rolls Out Real-Time Audio Translation for Headphone Users
• Reddit: Australia’s Under-16 Social Media Ban Creates ‘Serious Privacy and Political Expression Issues’
• ChatGPT Now Has More Monthly Visitors Than These Top Platforms
• Meta Reportedly Pushes Mixed Reality 'Phoenix' Smart Glasses to 2027
• Confused by Your Spotify Wrapped? Here's Why Certain Artists, Songs Made Your List
• More from Will McCurdy

Read Full Bio

• Executive order signed: President Trump issued order for nationwide AI regulatory framework overriding state laws.
• Innovation focus: Order states US AI companies need freedom from cumbersome state regulation to compete.
• AI Litigation Task Force: New task force to challenge state AI laws inconsistent with federal policy.
• Task force creation: AG Pam Bondi must establish it within 30 days, coordinating with David Sacks.
• Federal funding limits: States with onerous AI laws face restrictions on federal grants.
• BEAD program targeted: $42.5 billion rural broadband funding at risk for non-compliant states.
• Advocacy criticism: CDT's Alexandra Givens calls order a chill on state oversight and funding threat.
• Prior legislative failure: Senate voted 99-1 to remove 10-year state AI regulation moratorium from bill.

On Thursday evening, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for a single, nationwide regulatory framework governing artificial intelligence at the expense of the ability of different states to regulate the nascent technology. “To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation,” the order states. “But excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative.”

As was expected after a draft of the order leaked earlier this week, the centerpiece of the document is an “AI Litigation Task Force whose sole responsibility shall be to challenge state AI laws inconsistent” with the president’s policy vision. US Attorney General Pam Bondi has 30 days to create the task force, which shall meet regularly with the White House’s AI and crypto czar, David Sacks.

As laid out in the president’s AI Action Plan from July, the administration will also limit states with “onerous” AI laws from accessing federal funding. Specifically, the secretary of commerce will target funding available under the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program, a $42.5 billion effort to expand high-speed internet access in rural communities.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advocacy groups were quick to criticize the president’s order. “This executive order is designed to chill state-level action to provide oversight and accountability for the developers and deployers of AI systems, while doing nothing to address the real and documented harms these systems create,” Alexandra Givens, president and CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology, said in a statement provided to Engadget. “States that take steps to protect their residents from such harms should not be subject to threats of legal attacks; nor should the administration punish rural Americans by threatening to withhold funding for the broadband services that could connect them to AI in the first place.”

It’s worth noting President Trump’s previous attempts to curb the ability of states to regulate AI as they see fit has proven unpopular across the political spectrum. As part of his One Big Beautiful Bill, the president attempted to impose a 10-year moratorium on state-level AI regulation. That clause was eventually removed from the legislation in a decisive 99-1 vote by the Senate.

• No waitlist: Tinker now open to all users via sign-up link.
• Kimi K2 Thinking: Trillion-parameter model available for fine-tuning, designed for reasoning and tool use.
• OpenAI API compatibility: New inference interface supports OpenAI API format for sampling during training.
• Vision models: Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct and Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B-Instruct added for image processing.
• Image input: Uses ImageChunk with text for vision-language applications including fine-tuning.
• Classifier recipe: Cookbook example fine-tunes VLMs as image classifiers with few examples.
• Dataset tests: Qwen3-VL finetuned on Caltech 101, Stanford Cars, Oxford Flowers, Oxford Pets.
• Performance comparison: Qwen3-VL outperforms DINOv2 in low-data image classification accuracy.

Today we are announcing four updates to Tinker:

• No more waitlist
• New reasoning model: Kimi K2 Thinking
• New inference interface that is compatible with the OpenAI API
• Vision input support with Qwen3-VL

General availability#

The waitlist is over! Everybody can use Tinker now; sign up here to get started. See the Tinker homepage for available models and pricing, and check out the Tinker cookbook for code examples.

More reasoning with Kimi K2 Thinking#

Users can now fine-tune Kimi K2 Thinking on Tinker. With a trillion parameters, Kimi K2 is the largest model in our lineup so far. It is built for long chains of reasoning and tool use.

OpenAI API-compatible sampling#

Tinker has a standard function for inference:

prompt = types.ModelInput.from_ints(tokenizer.encode("The capital of France is",))
params = types.SamplingParams(max_tokens=20, temperature=0.0, stop=["\n"])
future = sampling_client.sample(prompt=prompt, sampling_params=params)

With this release, we have added OpenAI API-compatible scaffolding for quickly sampling from a model by specifying a path, even while it’s still training. This also means Tinker can now plug-and-play with any OpenAI API-compatible platform. See more information in our Tinker documentation.

response = openai_client.completions.create(
    model="tinker://0034d8c9-0a88-52a9-b2b7-bce7cb1e6fef:train:0/sampler_weights/000080",
    prompt="The capital of France is",
    max_tokens=20,
    temperature=0.0,
    stop=["\n"],
)

Vision input with Qwen3-VL#

We’ve added two vision models to Tinker: Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct and Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B-Instruct. With these, users can process pictures, screenshots, and diagrams for a variety of applications.

To input images, just interleave together an ImageChunk – consisting of your image, saved as bytes – with text chunks. For example:

model_input = tinker.ModelInput(chunks=[
  tinker.types.ImageChunk(data=image_data, format="png"),
  tinker.types.EncodedTextChunk(tokens=tokenizer.encode("What is this?")),
])

These vision inputs can be used in a variety of applications out-of-the-box, including SFT and RL finetuning.

To demonstrate vision understanding in action, we are sharing a new cookbook recipe for fine-tuning VLMs as image classifiers. Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B-Instruct obtains reasonable accuracy even given just one example per class; performance improves with more labeled data.

Training image classifiers with Tinker#

To showcase Tinker’s new vision capabilities, we finetuned Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B-Instruct to classify images on four classic datasets:

• Caltech 101, a dataset of 101 general object categories.
• Stanford Cars, a dataset of car makes, models, and years.
• Oxford Flowers, a dataset of flower species.
• Oxford Pets, a dataset of pet breeds.

Since Qwen3-VL is a language model, we frame classification as text generation: given an image, the model outputs the class name. We compare this approach against a traditional vision baseline of finetuning a vision-only model — DINOv2-base. DINOv2 is a self-supervised vision transformer that was trained to encode images, and is commonly used as a backbone for pure computer vision tasks. For DINOv2, we add a classification head that predicts a distribution over all N classes. Both models are fine-tuned with LoRA.

Labeled image data is scarce for many real-world use cases, so data efficiency is the primary measure we look at. We show the classification accuracy when sweeping across the number of labeled examples per class, starting with just a single one.

Comparison of fine-tuned Qwen3-VL-235-A22B and DINOv2 performance on simple image classification tasks.

In the limited-data regime, Qwen3-VL-235-A22B outperforms DINOv2. Not only is it a bigger model, but as a VLM, it also comes with language knowledge out-of-the-box (i.e. what a “golden retriever” or “sunflower” is). This general language-and-vision capability of Qwen3-VL makes it readily available for vision tasks beyond classification.

Happy Holidays#

Tinker exists to enable builders and researchers to train and customize state-of-the-art models. As always, we look forward to seeing what you build with Tinker. Happy holidays!

• Brian Cole Jr. arrested: Charged with placing pipe bombs near DNC and RNC on Jan. 5, 2021.
• Wray's narrative: Described as five-year FBI effort culminating in arrest.
• Bongino's account: New team assigned two months ago reviewed existing evidence like credit cards, cell phone, vehicle data to identify suspect.
• Investigation timeline: Massive early resources in 2021 produced 105 million data points, public tips, videos released, reward increased.
• Discovery details: Devices found near DNC (near Harris visit) and RNC; Secret Service sweeps occurred; later deemed nonoperational.
• Witness issues: RNC finder Karlin Younger reported inconsistencies on device timer and placement; linked to cell data provider.
• Congressional scrutiny: Loudermilk seeks interviews, evidence on deletions; report claims resources diverted by Feb. 2021.
• Wray's defenses: Testified to aggressive pursuit, thousands of interviews, vast data reviewed, but case unsolved at retirement.

X

Story Stream

recent articles

• Video: Global Warming Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit ...
• Article: Global Warming Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit ...
• Article: Global Warming Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit ...
• Entry: Global Warming Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit ...
• Video: Global Warming Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit ...

It’s a tale of two investigations.

In one version – based on past comments by former FBI Director Christopher Wray – the arrest last week of Brian Cole Jr. as the individual who allegedly placed pipe bombs near the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee on Jan. 5, 2021, was the culmination of a dogged, five-year effort by the bureau. 

In another version, suggested by Dan Bongino, the bureau’s deputy director, FBI agents revived a long-dormant case a few months ago, quickly tracking down Cole through an existing body of evidence, not from new information. At a press conference following Cole’s arrest last week, Bongino said he assigned a fresh team of investigators out of the Washington FBI field office about two months ago that “scoured [existing evidence] over and over and over and over again.” Key pieces of evidence gathered under the previous administration – including credit card purchases of components used to construct the devices, as well as cell phone and vehicle activity from Jan. 5 – led investigators to Cole.

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino says a new team quickly cracked the case using evidence collected years before.

AP

If Cole’s arrest proves to have solved the mystery of who planted the bombs, it presents another perhaps even more consequential question: Why did it take law enforcement so long to find him? Although there are no clear answers as of yet, Bongino’s description of the efforts that led to an arrest seems to contradict public comments and congressional testimony regarding the pipe bomb case previously provided by Wray. 

Given the case’s close connection to the highly-charged events of Jan. 6, questions are also being raised about whether Wray’s FBI essentially put the case on hold for political reasons. Such concerns stem, in part, from the bureau’s documented role in helping advance the discredited Russiagate narrative used against President Trump and its decision to remain silent as the Biden campaign dismissed Hunter Biden’s laptop as a “Russian plant” in the closing days of the 2020 campaign – despite the bureau having already verified its authenticity.

‘Every Rock’ Overturned

Although the bombs allegedly planted by Cole, who faces two federal charges relating to possession of an explosive device, never went off, law enforcement has always treated the bombs as possible instruments of mass casualties.

In the days after the Jan. 6 Capitol protest, top law enforcement officials promised to use all investigative resources necessary to track down the pipe bomb perpetrator. “Every tool, every rock is being unturned because we have to bring that person to justice,” Steven D’Antuono, head of the Washington FBI field office at the time, told reporters on Jan. 12, 2021. He also announced a $50,000 reward for anyone providing information leading to an arrest.

Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Michael Sherwin, who joined D’Antuono during the presser, even warned that felony murder charges “related to the use of destructive devices” could await the pipe bomber despite the fact that the devices did not detonate.

Records show the FBI devoted massive resources to the investigation in early 2021. A team of at least 50 FBI agents collected security camera footage, interviews, apparel purchases, cell phone records, police transmissions, and other evidence, resulting in a trove of 105 million data points by April 2021. Tips poured in from the public; analysts quickly identified the components, including a kitchen timer and a steel pipe used to construct the devices.

The FBI doubled the reward and released video clips of the alleged suspect, who was wearing a hoodie, distinctive Nike sneakers, and a face mask while carrying a backpack around the Capitol Hill neighborhood.

D’Antuono made another urgent plea for the public’s help in March 2021. “We know it can be a difficult decision to report information about family, friends, or co-workers, but this is about protecting human life,” he said in a five-minute video posted on the FBI’s website. Authorities continued to insist the devices had been “viable” and capable of injuring or killing bystanders.

In June 2021, Wray again told Congress under oath that the FBI was “aggressively investigating” who had planted the devices.

Troubling Details

While heading the FBI, Christopher Wray said the pipe bomb case was being "aggressively investigated."

AP

But even as the FBI assured the public it was conducting a vigorous investigation, journalists and Republicans in Congress were uncovering troubling details surrounding the discovery of both devices. In January 2022, Politico reported that Sen. Kamala Harris, the incoming vice president, had been inside DNC headquarters when a plain-clothes Capitol Police officer found the pipe bomb under a bush between two benches next to the driveway of the building – the same driveway Harris’ Secret Service detail had used when she arrived a few hours earlier.

That disclosure raised concerns over the Secret Service’s sweep of the premises earlier that day, as did the discovery of security camera footage showing bomb-sniffing canine units twice deployed near the spot where the device was later found. Even after the device was discovered, video shows law enforcement acting nonchalantly about the potential danger – even allowing a group of schoolchildren to walk past the area. Adding to the mystery is a Quantico report that determined the devices at both the DNC and RNC were nonoperational – a finding, if true, that is likely to be trumpeted by Cole’s lawyers.

In another odd twist, Karlin Younger, the woman who found the pipe bomb near the RNC at 12:40 p.m. on Jan. 6, worked for FirstNet - the same provider that later told the FBI the cell phone data for Jan. 5 had been corrupted and was not recoverable. According to Bongino, the cell phone data had not been corrupted and was crucial evidence that led to Cole’s arrest. 

Younger said she alerted a security guard at the RNC after she found the device sitting near a dumpster when she went to finish her laundry at 12:40 p.m. on Jan. 6. But she also told an FBI investigator the device was not near the dumpster at noon when she went to start her first load, which contradicts the official timeline that the pipe bomber planted his devices on the night of Jan. 5. An FBI report on the components of the device disproved her statement that the RNC device contained a timer set at 20 minutes – suggesting the bomb was scheduled to detonate at the exact same time Congress convened at 1:00 p.m. to certify the 2020 election.

Demand for More Answers

Rep. Barry Loudermilk wants more answers on the pipe bomb probe.

AP

Rep. Barry Loudermilk, chairman of a new select subcommittee on Jan. 6, wants more answers on the circumstances surrounding both discoveries. This week, he sent a letter to Younger asking her to sit for a transcribed interview before his new select subcommittee on January 6. He has previously asked the director of the Secret Service to make the agents on Harris’ security detail that day available for questioning. Loudermilk has also said he plans to explore the destruction of evidence – including the deletion of Secret Services text messages before and on January 6 and of video images from the DNC and RNC on Jan. 6. “As we go and looking for video on January 6th to see did anybody go back to these locations, that footage doesn't exist anymore,” he told podcaster Benny Johnson. “We have January 5th video, but we were told no one preserved January 6th. … This has inhibited our investigation.”

The revelation of those curious circumstances as the FBI investigation dragged on put Wray on the defensive. He refused to discuss details about the investigation with Republican Rep. Thomas Massie during a 2023 House Judiciary Committee hearing and would not confirm whether the FBI interviewed the officer who found the DNC device.

During a heated 2023 exchange with Rep. Eli Crane, an Arizona Republican, Wray said, “We [the FBI] have an entire dedicated team focused specifically on this investigation.” 

Wray also told the Arizona Republican, which had challenged him to explain the successful roundup of hundreds of J6 protesters but not the individual responsible for a potential “mass casualty” event that day, “We’ve done thousands of interviews, we’ve visited thousands of residents and businesses, viewed millions of pieces of data, there’s something like 39,000 video files, and we’ve assessed like 500 or so tips. We’ve done extensive public publicity, we’ve increased the reward money.” Wray further claimed that the FBI laboratory, weapons of mass destruction unit, technology division, and “cellular analysis team” were still hot on the pipe bomber’s trail. “I, as much as anybody, would like to see it solved.”

In a 2023 interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, Wray said the FBI had devoted “loads” of resources to the investigation and that he had “enormous confidence” in his team assigned to the pipe bomb case.

But when Wray retired shortly before President Trump took office for the second time, a full four years after the launch of the investigation, the pipe bomb case remained unsolved. 

More Headscratchers

A report overseen by Loudermilk and Rep. Thomas Massie asserted investigators had largely abandoned the case by February 2021.

AP

Others doubt Wray’s assurances that this case remained a priority on his watch. A January 2025 update on the pipe bomb matter overseen by Loudermilk and Massie asserted, based on law enforcement correspondence, that interest in the case waned as early as one month after the Capitol protest. “By the end of February 2021, the FBI began diverting resources away from the pipe bomb investigation,” the report stated, citing as a reference a Feb. 2021 email from an unidentified Capitol Police official. “One possible explanation for the reduction in resources is that the number of credible leads began to decline, no longer requiring as many special agents to cover the workload.”

Perhaps the biggest headscratcher – how the new team of investigators used cell phone data that D’Antuono claimed had been corrupted – demands answers. In sworn testimony to Congress, D’Antuono had told lawmakers that the FBI “did a complete geofence” for the night of Jan. 5 but that “some data was corrupted by one of the providers.” That assertion appears to be false.

Congress appears interested in determining how Wray’s FBI came up empty-handed. A House Judiciary Committee spokesman told RCI “everything is on the table” in terms of getting answers from the former director about the pipe bomb investigation. Efforts to reach Wray and D’Antuono for comment were unsuccessful.

But the public is entitled to know whether the investigation begun during Wray’s tenure was simply a case that took five years to bring to fruition – or whether it is another example of a federal investigation compromised by political considerations.

Support RealClear, Independent Journalism

Carl Cannon, RCP Executive Editor

“Information wants to be free!” was a rallying cry at the dawn of the Internet Age. The paradox is that information also “wants to be expensive.”

At RealClearPolitics, we provide news and information spanning the ideological spectrum—without a paywall. That’s the “free” part.

But producing quality journalism means paying reporters, editors, aggregators, tech team, and the analysts who curate RCP’s renowned polling averages. That’s the expensive part.

If you value independent news and seeing a diversity of viewpoints, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to RealClear Media Fund. Every dollar you donate is an investment in an informed public discourse and holding government and other key institutions accountable. Your support helps us put First Amendment theory into real-world practice.

Sincerely,

Carl Cannon
Executive Editor
RealClearPolitics