LLM (google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-20260507) summary:

• Regulatory Intervention: the uk competition and markets authority mandates that google allow publishers to exclude their content from ai search features.
• Market Control: bureaucratic regulators are attempting to empower publishers to dictate the terms under which their content is utilized by data aggregators.
• Antitrust Scrutiny: the european commission is conducting an inquiry into whether google unfairly leverages its search dominance to obtain privileged access to data.
• State Mandates: the uk government intends to utilize new legislation to classify massive digital corporations as entities subject to strict conduct requirements.
• Corporate Compliance: google is initiating a testing phase for tools designed to satisfy regulator demands while maintaining control over search traffic distribution.
• Traffic Dependence: the company explicitly reminds publishers that opting out of ai-driven search functions will result in a loss of associated web traffic.
• Strategic Designation: the competition and markets authority continues to monitor google under the pretext of its strategic market status to enforce arbitrary operational changes.
• Bargaining Pretenses: government officials claim intervention is necessary to force companies to provide publishers with more leverage during commercial negotiations.

By

Adrià Calatayud

and

Edith Hancock

Updated June 3, 2026 5:09 am ET

---

Google has developed its own AI platform, Gemini, and recently rolled out AI features in its traditional search engine. Annegret Hilse/Reuters

U.K. antitrust regulators said they would allow publishers to opt out of feeding their content to power artificial-intelligence features in Google’s online searches.

The Competition and Markets Authority said Wednesday that the move aims to give publishers control over how their content is used by AI and put them in a stronger position to negotiate with Google.

The tech giant has developed its own AI platform, Gemini, and rolled out AI features in its traditional search engine.

Regulators have grown increasingly concerned with how Google powers its AI tools, which essentially aggregate information on the internet to answer users’ queries in addition to Google Search’s links to other websites. The European Commission started in December an antitrust investigation into whether Google imposes unfair terms on publishers or is hurting competition online by giving itself privileged access to third-party content for its AI features.

It is also the next step in the U.K. watchdog’s bid to enforce the Digital Markets, Competition, and Consumer bill, which seeks to level the playing field for businesses online. Under the law, tech companies like Google are labeled as having strategic status due to their control over dominant platforms like search engines. Once designated, the CMA can impose so-called conduct requirements for them to follow.

Mrinalini Loew, general manager of Google’s Search Ecosystem, said in a blog post Wednesday that the company is listening to publishers and engaging with the CMA. It said it is starting to test a new tool that lets website owners manage how their content appears in AI search features, saying that sites that do choose to opt out of appearing in AI search results will not receive traffic from them, and how sites use the tool won’t factor into how their content is ranked in reach outside of its AI services.

“We are beginning to roll these features out to a subset of website owners in the UK, allowing for thorough testing before rolling them out to website owners globally,” Loew said.

The CMA said it is monitoring the changes Google implemented and their implications for businesses. The CMA deems Google’s search service to have strategic market status, which allows the regulator to introduce targeted requirements on how it operates.

“With features like AI Overviews rapidly reshaping online search, it is crucial that content publishers, including news organizations, have appropriate bargaining power over how their content is used,” CMA Chief Executive Sarah Cardell said.

News Corp, owner of The Wall Street Journal, has a commercial agreement to supply content on Google platforms.

Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Adrià Calatayud is deputy breaking news editor for the EMEA desk at Dow Jones Newswires in Barcelona. Adrià covers European telecommunications, media and logistics companies. He was previously a market insights writer and a reporter at the U.K. desk in Barcelona.

Before joining the company in 2017, he worked for Spanish news agency EFE as a correspondent in China and the U.S.

Edith Hancock covers European competition enforcement for Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal from Brussels. Before joining WSJ, Edith worked as a competition reporter for Politico Europe. She holds a master's degree in Business and Economics journalism from Columbia University in New York and in Interactive Journalism from City University in London.

---

Up Next

Tech, Media & Telecom Roundup: Market Talk

Find insight on AT&T, Starlink and more in the latest Market Talks covering technology, media and telecom.

Continue To Article

---

Alphabet’s Mega Fundraising Shows the Value of Being a Public Company

In AI, money talks. The ability to tap stock market capital is important again, after a quarter of a century of being all but irrelevant.

Continue To Article

---

Trump Signs AI Executive Order to Increase Government Oversight

The order is a slimmed-down version of the one Trump shelved last month and asks AI companies to give the administration access to powerful models 30 days before public release.

Continue To Article

---

Mark Zuckerberg Wants Meta’s New AI Agents to Run Your Whole Business

The new agent is part of the company’s effort to broaden beyond its core consumer business as it spends aggressively on artificial intelligence.

Continue To Article

---

Google Seeks $80 Billion for AI Buildout; Berkshire Will Buy $10 Billion Stake

The company says it will use the money to finance data-center expansion and secure computing capacity.

Continue To Article

---

Google Is Daring Rivals To Keep Up in AI Spending Race

Plus, Anthropic gets the IPO ball rolling and Nvidia makes a play for the PC market.

Continue To Article

---

Beyond the ‘brazen theft’ of news: The entire $12 trillion creative economy may now be at risk from AI

AI firms heavily use news and other creative content to provide answers — but New York Times Publisher A.G. Sulzberger says their resistance to pay for it amounts to a repackaging of “stolen goods.”

Continue To Article

---

Saudi Arabia’s Futuristic City Project Paused Until at Least 2030

Mansion Global’s daily round-up of the latest luxury real estate news from around the world

Continue To Article

---

---

Videos

LLM (google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-20260507) summary:

• Strategic Pivot: nvidia extends its market dominance by launching central-processing units for personal computers to displace established x86 providers.
• Market Speculation: financial markets reacted with predictable frenzy as shares of nvidia and affiliated hardware manufacturers rose on artificial intelligence hype.
• Competitive Displacement: the plan targets the weakening grip of intel and amd, who currently struggle to manufacture excitement for their existing hardware products.
• Industry Stagnation: despite corporate narratives of a revolutionary artificial intelligence boom, global personal computer sales remain tepid and below historical peaks.
• Forced Adoption: recent sales of hardware with artificial intelligence features occur mostly because consumers lack viable alternatives at preferred performance levels.
• Substantial Revenue: while pc-related business grows, it remains merely a secondary enterprise compared to the vast sums extracted from data center hardware sales.
• Technical Obstacles: transition to arm-based architectures faces significant friction due to entrenched software dependence on legacy x86 instruction sets.
• Brand Cultism: the strategy relies heavily on the hope that the current artificial intelligence cachet will replicate the historical success of marketing slogans like intel inside.

By

Dan Gallagher

and

Asa Fitch

7

---

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang introduced the RTX Spark laptop during his keynote speech at Computex 2026 in Taipei. I-Hwa Cheng/AFP/Getty Images

The “Intel Inside” marketing campaign made Intel a household name and a ubiquitous personal-computer chip supplier in the 1990s.

These days, “Nvidia Inside” has a lot more selling power.

That is what Nvidia NVDA 6.26%increase; green up pointing triangle is betting with its new line of PC chips, set to be in Windows-based computers launching later this year. With its artificial-intelligence cachet, it is very likely that Nvidia will succeed, potentially upending an order in the PC world that has prevailed for pretty much the past five decades.

Investors are optimistic. Nvidia’s shares jumped more than 6% on Monday, while Windows-maker Microsoft MSFT 2.28%increase; green up pointing triangle rose more than 2%. Shares of PC makers Dell Technologies DELL 10.70%increase; green up pointing triangle and HP HPQ 8.51%increase; green up pointing triangle both surged more than 8%. Arm Holdings ARM 15.73%increase; green up pointing triangle, which licenses the basic blueprints that Nvidia uses in its PC chips, jumped more than 15%.

The direct impact of Nvidia’s PC play on its finances will likely be limited, given the enormous size of the company’s business selling AI chips for data centers. But the move does put Nvidia in a position to supercharge the market for AI-enabled computers and disrupt incumbents in the process. 

Nvidia isn’t exactly a new entrant to the market. It has been a big player in PCs for decades through its graphics chips, which produce sharper and smoother images on computer monitors—a capability videogamers prize. But before detailing its latest chips at a trade show in Taiwan, it hadn’t made the central-processing units at the computational hearts of PCs. Intel INTC -4.67%decrease; red down pointing triangle and Advanced Micro Devices AMD -1.16%decrease; red down pointing triangle dominate that market.

Nvidia’s new chips, which combine a CPU with the company’s wildly popular AI-computing hardware, come at a time of weakness for Intel. Intel remains the biggest supplier of CPUs for traditional Windows PCs, with a market share of about 64% in the final quarter of last year, according to Mercury Research. But Intel and other players in the PC market haven’t been able to convince huge numbers of consumers or companies to buy new computers because of the AI capabilities of their chips.

Around 270 million PCs were sold last year, according to Gartner, up by around 9% from 2024. That isn’t a stellar increase amid an AI boom that is supposed to transform how people work and live. The total is still below its Covid-era peak of about 340 million in 2021.

So far, most sales of AI-enabled PCs to date have been by default. Computer makers are adding neural-processing chips that enable some on-device AI functions to all of their higher-performing product lines. 

“The buyers choosing AI PCs today aren’t necessarily doing so for the AI,” said Jitesh Ubrani of market research firm IDC, which tracks PC sales. “They’re doing so because, at a certain performance tier, there’s no alternative.” 

For Nvidia, PCs are a small part of its business now. But the company boasts a strong appeal in the segment, which bodes well for its latest effort. Nvidia’s PC-related revenue jumped 41% in the fiscal year ended January to a little over $16 billion, thanks in part to the introduction of new videogaming chips under the company’s popular Blackwell brand. Total PC unit sales grew only 8% during the calendar year, according to IDC data. 

Created with Highcharts 9.0.1Global PC-unit shipments per yearSource: IDC

Created with Highcharts 9.0.12015'20'25050100150200250300350400 million

Whether Nvidia makes further inroads with its PC chips will be a test of the power of its brand and its close association with the AI boom. It will likely be much easier for Nvidia to sell people and companies on new AI-ready computers than it has been for Intel or AMD—or for that matter, Apple AAPL -1.84%decrease; red down pointing triangle, which also has a popular line of computers that use homegrown chips.

Nvidia’s rise won’t come without challenges—the largest of which may be the software stickiness that has built up around Intel’s and AMD’s processors. They use a basic chip architecture called x86. But software that works on x86 processors needs to be adapted to work well on Nvidia’s or Apple’s Arm-based chips.

There is now a version of Microsoft’s Windows operating system for Arm-based chips, and software engineers have been developing more programs for Arm as the number of Arm-based PCs grows. But Arm as a PC platform remains at a software-development disadvantage vis-à-vis x86, including in areas such as gaming, which remains an important end market for Nvidia.

Ultimately though, Nvidia’s entrance into CPUs for PCs is likely to further erode the remaining x86 advantage, especially in the world of Windows-based PCs, where it has been difficult for new Arm-based players to gain a foothold.

“Intel Inside” worked for many years. But in tech, even memorable marketing slogans have a shelf life.

Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Asa Fitch is a writer covering technology for The Wall Street Journal’s Heard on the Street column, based in New York. He also co-writes the Journal's weekly AI & Business newsletter. Asa previously reported on semiconductor companies from the Journal’s San Francisco and New York bureaus, where he covered Nvidia’s rise amid the AI boom and Intel’s struggles to turn itself around.

Prior to that, Asa spent a decade as a foreign correspondent in the Middle East. He joined the Journal in Dubai, where he initially covered business and finance before shifting to covering regional politics and conflicts. He covered the Gaza War in 2014, the military campaign against Islamic State in Iraq, the Yemeni civil war, and Iranian elections and politics, including the country’s nuclear deal in 2015.

Asa began his career as a general-news reporter in Connecticut and a personal finance reporter in New York. He is a graduate of Carleton College and Columbia University's journalism school.

Dan Gallagher is a columnist for The Wall Street Journal’s Heard on the Street, where he covers the technology and media industries. His work for the Heard column spans the businesses of artificial intelligence, semiconductors, internet, software, hardware, advertising, streaming TV and film. Dan also co-writes WSJ's AI & Business newsletter.

He joined the column in 2013 after nearly two decades covering tech as a news reporter—starting well before smartphones got smart. 

Dan previously spent 10 years at MarketWatch, where he built a data news team and served as technology editor. He is based in San Francisco.

---

Up Next

Tech, Media & Telecom Roundup: Market Talk

Find insight on Nvidia, Samsung Electronics, India’s data-center industry and more in the latest Market Talks covering Technology, Media and Telecom.

Continue To Article

---

Nvidia’s Huang Says Marvell May Join $1 Trillion Club

Jensen Huang says Marvell Technology could be the next chip firm to join the trillion-dollar club, predicting a surge in demand for AI hardware fueled by the emergence of autonomous models.

Continue To Article

---

U.S. Stocks Climb as Nvidia Fuels AI Enthusiasm

U.S. stocks rose amid enthusiasm for AI stocks, even as fresh tensions in the Middle East weighed on markets.

Continue To Article

---

Nvidia and Anthropic Beat Back June Gloom

Plus, Barry Diller thinks MGM Resorts has a winning hand.

Continue To Article

---

Your FOMO Is Strong, but Pity Finance Pros

Plus, Alphabet makes a cash call.

Continue To Article

---

The High-Stakes Hunt for the Next Amazon in the AI Haystack

With artificial intelligence winners and losers changing places so quickly, it isn’t just about where to invest, but also when.

Continue To Article

---

Intel and AMD shares fall as Nvidia sets its sights on a new market

Nvidia’s new PC CPU changes the competitive landscape, an analyst says, but the company still has a ways to go before it gains serious traction.

Continue To Article

---

Glass House Teetering Over the Sea in British Columbia Takes in the Whales, Otters and Approaching Storms

The home above Howe Sound offers 400 feet of accessible shoreline, a sandy beach and an oceanside heated pool

Continue To Article

---

---

Videos

The establishment political consensus has long held that it’s impossible to rein in illegal immigration until Congress passes “comprehensive immigration reform.” The Congressional Budget Office has recently made clear that all it really takes is a president willing to enforce federal immigration laws, as he is constitutionally required to do.

The CBO recently revised its estimates concerning the number of illegal aliens entering or leaving the United States. More than a year ago, just before Inauguration Day, the CBO estimated that a net 1.1 million “other foreign nationals”—those lacking “a legal immigration status”—would be added to the U.S. population in 2025. Now the CBO has revised that estimate downward by a whopping 1.5 million illegal aliens—from an increase of 1.1 million to a decrease of 360,000. This downward revision of 1.5 million people is equivalent to the population of San Antonio.

What caused this “significant reduction?” The congressional scorekeeper’s answer is clear. The decline was “driven largely by administrative actions taken since January 20, 2025.” The CBO particularly emphasizes an action that President Donald Trump took on his first day in office: “Executive Order 14165 reinstated the policy of Migrant Protection Protocols, which require people who want to apply for asylum in the United States to return to the territory from which they came.” The CBO adds, “That order also ended all categorical parole programs and ceased the use of the CBP One app as a method of paroling or facilitating the entry of people into the United States.”

Under President Joe Biden, illegal aliens who “arrived between official ports of entry”—that is, along the open (southwestern) border—“were generally released into the United States,” writes the CBO. It adds, “People could also use the CBP One app to schedule an appointment at a port of entry” and then “be released into the United States.”

The Trump administration almost immediately stopped the Biden administration’s lawless practice of releasing illegal aliens into the U.S. interior. This accounts for the CBO estimate that 1.5 million fewer illegal aliens were living in the U.S. at the end of 2025 than would have been the case with a continuation of Biden’s policies. The 46th president’s “equity”-based policies brought about a border crisis by design.

While the mainstream press emphasizes ICE raids and deportations, the Trump administration’s removal of aliens from the U.S. interior accounted for less than one-tenth of the CBO’s downward revision in net illegal immigration—it estimates that 120,000 people were removed from the U.S. interior in 2025. Far from being driven by deportations, more than 90 percent of the Trump administration’s success in reducing illegal immigration has come from limiting border crossings, per the CBO’s figures.

The CBO estimates that 540,000 illegal aliens arrived along the open border in 2024, between the ports of entry, and were released into the U.S. by the Biden administration. In 2025, such releases dipped to 20,000—a 96 percent decrease. Similarly, 960,000 illegal aliens arrived at the ports of entry and were released into the U.S. in 2024, compared with only 60,000 in 2025—a 94 percent drop. (Many of those released under Trump were unaccompanied minors, required by law to be released to sponsor families.)

What’s more, only about half of the 2025 releases occurred from February through December. Most of the releases at the ports, and many of the releases along the open border, occurred in January, when Biden was still in office for most of the month. In fact, roughly the same number of illegal aliens were released into the country during three weeks of Biden as during 49 weeks of Trump.

In addition, the Trump administration dramatically cut the number of people who evaded capture and snuck across the border. The CBO estimates that about 300,000 people escaped across the border in this manner in 2024 but only about 50,000 did so in 2025—an 83 percent reduction. In a 2023 immigration case, U.S. District Court Judge T. Kent Wetherell said the Biden administration’s “actions were akin to posting a flashing ‘Come In, We’re Open’ sign on the southern border.” When the Trump administration effectively unplugged that sign, the number of people trying to sneak across the border dropped dramatically.

In all, the CBO estimates that about 80,000 people lacking “a legal immigration status” were released into the U.S. last year (roughly half of them during the 20 days of Biden), while 50,000 snuck across the border and 260,000 overstayed their visas. Meanwhile, 400,000 decided to leave voluntarily, 120,000 were removed from the interior of the U.S., and 225,000 attained permanent legal status. That amounts to a one-year reduction in the illegal alien population of about 360,000, whereas the CBO had previously projected an increase of about 1.1 million.

The CBO now projects that over the first three years of the Trump administration, the number of illegal aliens living in the U.S. will decrease by 1 million (with reductions of 360,000 in 2025, 330,000 in 2026, and 330,000 in 2027). Over the last three years of the Biden administration, the CBO estimates a 5.7 million increase (2 million in 2022, 2.4 million in 2023, and 1.3 million in 2024) in the number of illegal aliens living in the U.S. That 6.7 million swing—from 5.7 million to negative 1 million—exceeds the combined populations of Los Angeles and Phoenix. That’s the difference between three years of Biden’s policies versus three years of Trump’s, according to the CBO.

The success that the Trump administration has had in reversing the flow of illegal immigration—simply by enforcing existing laws—was broadly thought to be impossible. Less than a year before Trump took office, the Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote that “the President needs Congress to fix the underlying incentives at the border.” A few months later, the Biden White House issued a fact sheet that began, “Since his first day in office, President Biden has called on Congress to secure our border.” When asked about illegal immigration during a 60 Minutes interview in October 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris said that “we need Congress to be able to act to actually fix the problem.”

It turns out that fixing the problem required only executing the laws already on the books—specifically the law requiring that asylum-seekers be detained while their cases are heard, rather than being released into the interior of the country. The Immigration and Nationality Act declares that “if an alien asserts a credible fear of persecution, he or she shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum.” Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito writes that these detention “requirements, as we have held, are mandatory.”

The foreign-born portion of the U.S. population rose from 4.7 percent in 1970 to 16.2 percent in 2023, and probably reached about 16.8 percent in 2024—easily breaking the previous all-time record of 14.8 percent set in 1890, at the height of the great waves of nineteenth-century immigration. It will take many years of enforcing existing immigration laws to see that percentage dip back down to something approaching historical norms. But as the CBO now acknowledges, the Trump administration is making significant headway—even if the congressional scorekeeper didn’t see it coming.

LLM (google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-20260507) summary:

• Flawed Methodology: the cited analysis from the university of chicago justice project relies on inconsistent timeframes that fail to account for seasonal variations in crime and emergency call volumes.
• Data Discrepancies: local reporting highlights that the underlying data used to justify shotspotter removal is unreliable and suffers from significant statistical oversights.
• Subjective Comparisons: the research team cherry-picked a winter period for post-shotspotter response times, essentially comparing cold months with statistically lower call volumes to warmer, high-activity months.
• Hidden Variables: the study conveniently excludes gunshot-related calls from its response time metrics without providing transparent justification for why these were omitted from broader analysis.
• Contextual Distortion: chicago's recent fluctuations in crime align with national trends, making it impossible to attribute local improvements specifically to the administrative decision to axe public safety technology.
• Questionable Impact: statistical evidence suggests the purported gains in response efficiency are drastically overstated, with the proposed improvements potentially losing half their significance if a proper control group were applied.
• Implementation Challenges: while proponents frame the removal as a success, actual operational outcomes are obscured by the city's broader staffing deficits and inability to effectively leverage existing policing tools.
• Ideological Bias: the current municipal rhetoric prioritizes political performance over rigorous evidence, settling for superficial metrics rather than addressing the core complexities of urban public safety.

Courtesy Scott Olson/Getty Images

“The data proves we’re doing what works: investing in communities, improving response times, and giving police officers tools that are effective,” Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson announced on X last week. “Not wasting taxpayer dollars for walkie talkies on poles that overpolice communities without improving safety.”

He was referring to a brief analysis from the University of Chicago Justice Project, which purported to show a 4.2-minute improvement in response time to “Priority 1” 911 calls—calls that require an immediate response—as well as a decline in violent crime after the city ended its use of ShotSpotter.

ShotSpotter is, basically, a system of microphones that monitor for the sound of gunshots in designated areas and, after human review of any gunfire-like bangs, turns the audio and estimated coordinates over to the cops.

The Justice Project’s analysis is weak sauce, despite the intense coverage it’s received in the Chicago media. The results have little bearing on the question of whether Chicago did the right thing by ending ShotSpotter in late 2024, or whether Johnson’s administration is doing the wrong thing by dragging its feet as it searches for a replacement.

To begin with, as the crime-watchers at CWBChicago promptly reported, the underlying data are less than perfect—the city doesn’t record response times as reliably as it should. Further, there are two significant sleights of hand in the analysis itself, key details the authors buried in fine print at the bottom of the web page where they presented their results.

First, the analysis uses two different time periods. When analyzing crime rates, the authors contrast the first nine months of 2024 and the first nine months of 2025—a sensible way of addressing the fact that crime is seasonal, rising in the summer and plummeting in the (frigid, if you’re in Chicago) winter. They explicitly note this time period not just in the fine print but also in the main text of the analysis.

By contrast, when they look at response times, the main text merely refers to an unspecified period “after ShotSpotter was removed.” Only by reading the fine print do we learn they are comparing “the six months right before the shutdown of ShotSpotter in 2024 and the first six months right after the shutdown.”

Which is to say that they are comparing, basically, a spring and summer with ShotSpotter to a fall and winter without it. This is a problem because, much like crime in general, Chicago’s Priority 1 calls have a strong seasonal pattern:

Chicago Priority 1 911 Calls

Source: Chicago Inspector General 911 call data, subset to Priority 1 calls.

There are simply fewer calls to respond to at colder times of the year. Further, this will have a bigger impact on the higher-crime areas where ShotSpotter was installed—which helps explain why, according to the analysis, ShotSpotter areas had twice the response-time improvement that non-covered areas did.

Incidentally, that same number implies that if the authors had used non-covered beats as a control group, rather than just comparing response times in ShotSpotter areas at two different parts of the year, their headline 4.2-minute result would have been cut in half.

The other issue CWBChicago flagged is that the researchers removed gunshot calls from the data. To be clear, there’s nothing inherently wrong with analyzing high-priority non-gunshot calls specifically. If, for example, ShotSpotter improved responses to gunshot calls but undermined responses to other calls, that would be worth knowing. But this is something readers should have been told up front, rather than being buried in fine print.

I’d like to add a few points to those raised by CWBChicago as well.

One is that Chicago’s recent crime decline has mirrored an improvement for the overall U.S.; over the past four years, murders have fallen by nearly half in both. This makes it difficult to tell what’s driving trends in the Windy City specifically, either citywide or in the higher-crime neighborhoods that had ShotSpotter—and it shows why accounting for the annual seasonality of crime trends, while necessary, does not isolate the impact of ShotSpotter itself.

If you thought ShotSpotter magically cut crime by 75 percent everywhere it’s installed, I suppose the similar crime declines in Chicago and the rest of the country should disabuse you of that notion. More realistically, though, the system might modestly reduce crime by getting cops to scenes a bit faster and producing extra evidence, and this analysis can’t distinguish such nuances from broader trends and noise in the data.

The balance of work between Priority 1 911 calls and ShotSpotter alerts is also worth pondering. As depicted in the chart above, Chicago police receive around 30,000 to 50,000 Priority 1 calls per month. Under ShotSpotter in 2024, the department was also getting about 2,000 to 3,000 monthly ShotSpotter alerts that weren’t accompanied by a 911 call about the same noises. The department’s work is divided amongst 11,500 officers.

What to make of such figures? The department has a lot on its plate, its current staffing is not sufficient for the challenges it faces, and responding to ShotSpotter calls certainly can have some impact on response times for other matters. Given that Priority 1 response times exceed ten or even 15 minutes on many beats even in the authors’ second period, these are clearly serious concerns. Nonetheless, the high ratio of top-priority 911 calls to ShotSpotter alerts should make us skeptical of a big role for the latter in overall response times.

ShotSpotter comes with real tradeoffs, which I laid out in considerable detail in a report last year. In general, it does seem to get cops to the scene of likely gunfire more quickly than 911 calls and boost evidence recovery, and it does sometimes alert cops to incidents they wouldn’t have heard about otherwise.

It also leads cops to scenes where they can’t find physical evidence of gunfire, though, and making the most of it requires manpower than some departments are lacking, with studies divided at best as to whether it leads to concrete improvements in crime and clearance rates. Eric Piza’s studies of Chicago have showed improved response to gunshots and increased firearm recoveries but no measurable improvement in crime or clearances.

I could buy that Chicago wasn’t making the most of the technology or simply didn’t have the staff to do so. And I’m eager to see more studies on the impact of shutting the system off. But hopefully future studies will feature more serious analysis than what the mayor is pushing.

Share

From the Manhattan Institute

• Chris Pope on reining in Medicaid managed care.

• Over at City Journal’s main site, Barry Latzer and Kristofer Bret Bucklen break down the crimes of parolees.

Other Work of Note

• Nature Human Behavior publishes a critique of a study that had claimed “anti-transgender” laws increased suicide attempts among trans and non-binary teens.

• Ride-sharing might be good for the environment in dense cities. Apparently, it enables people to rely less on their own cars and more on public transit (presumably using ride-sharing to fill in the gaps).

• A CBO tool for projecting discretionary spending.

• New data on the ideological diversity of college faculty.

• Big new survey of parents.

• AI vs. people for reproducing scientific findings.

• Have we bent the health-care cost curve?

• Global support for gender egalitarianism has plateaued, partly because “fertility is higher in countries where average support for gender equality is lower.”

• Trends in maternal mortality.

• Who pays the aluminum tariff?

• Testing a (fairly silly?) 1972 conjecture from Ronald Coase about the behavior of monopolists.

• If top colleges reduce graduate enrollment in response to the endowment tax, will that slow scientific progress?

• What does free community college achieve?

• Tax competition and economic growth.

• Ideas for bringing down crime in D.C. with hot-spots policing.

• Who cares for kids when mothers go to prison?

• “Does violent delinquency predict premature death?” (Spoiler alert: Yes.)

• Breaking down substance abuse among men who are not employed or in school.

• More small-but-positive impacts from school cell-phone controls, this time in Brazil.

• More podiatrists, fewer amputations for diabetics?

Share

Jim “Fergie” Chambers, the Communist millionaire and heir to the Cox media fortune, has long bankrolled one of the nation’s most militant protest networks. But in recent weeks, he has turned his fire on a putative ally: Shanghai-based tech billionaire Neville Roy Singham, who himself funds a transnational web of far-left groups.

What’s going on? In a series of X posts, Chambers alleged that Singham’s network of nonprofits and activist groups has tried to redirect insurgent organizing into tightly controlled institutions linked to the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), a U.S.-based revolutionary Communist party. Chambers sees Singham’s operation as “turn[ing] their back on direct actionists”—implying that Singham prefers exercising control over the movement to enabling the sort of serious radicalism Chambers endorses.

The conflict between the two is in part another example of the Left’s tendency to collapse into infighting. But more importantly, Chambers’s criticism offers a rare public window into the inner workings of the Singham network, one of the radical Left’s most effective and prolific organizing operations. And, in its surfacing of the importance of the PSL to that network, Chambers’s X commentary highlights a potent target for policymakers looking to dismantle Singham’s influence operation.

Chambers is one of the main funders of America’s radical Left. His money has flowed to a host of projects in the “anti-imperialism” organizing space. These include a recent $1 million Ramadan donation to Palestinian causes, including a group that advances terrorist-sympathetic messages in America’s schools.

Chambers claims that he and Singham are effectively the two primary financiers of the “US radical left.” Despite this, the two have apparently been at loggerheads—a conflict that has now gone public.

Chambers’ attack appears to have been triggered by the Singham-aligned People’s Forum’s choice to host an event with Kat Abughazaleh, the former Media Matters journalist turned congressional candidate. The event drew backlash from more militant-aligned factions of the radical Left. Radical activist Calla Walsh, a Chambers friend, has denounced Abughazaleh as a “neocon” over her support for arming Ukraine and Taiwan.

Whatever the trigger, the break was a long time coming. According to Chambers, the roots of the conflict go back to the October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attacks. Shortly afterward, Walsh—the 21-year-old DSA activist turned mouthpiece for America’s adversaries—launched Palestine Action US with Chambers’s support. The group is an offshoot of Palestine Action U.K., a designated terrorist organization in Great Britain.

Chambers claimed that senior Singham network figures responded to the launch by discouraging “direct actions”—a movement euphemism for illegal vandalism, destruction, and force—targeting the Israeli defense firm Elbit Systems. Those figures allegedly urged Chambers and Walsh to travel to New York City for meetings aimed at persuading them to reconsider the campaign, including warnings to “stop this direct action and go back to school.” The effort failed, and Palestine Action US continued its direct-action campaign and caused nearly $100,000 in damage to an Elbit facility.

According to Chambers, Singham quietly instructed affiliates to distance themselves from Palestine Action, eventually creating Shut It Down 4 Palestine as the network-approved vehicle for pro-Palestine direct action. Chambers described the PSL leadership as having “actively interfered, sought to control [Palestine Action US], snuff it out, hurt its reputation, and isolate its actionists.”

It’s not clear why Singham’s network, no stranger to radical action, tried to discourage attacking Elbit. But it is consistent with the network’s longstanding view that revolutionary mass movements will fail unless they are guided by an educated vanguard—a strategy Chambers criticized as resulting in “a vanguard party comprised of liberal arts theater kids.”

At the same time, the split between the far-Left’s two most serious backers suggests that Singham’s network was not looking to collaborate, but to exercise centralized control over the whole of the extreme anti-Israel movement.

The same tendency is apparent in Chambers’s claims that the Singham operation had previously courted him. In 2023, Chambers operated a commune-style activist compound in Massachusetts centered on political agitation, ideological training, and physical conditioning. He also financially supported a network of young militants that included figures such as Walsh.

According to Chambers, Singham network-aligned figures proposed to use his property for a People’s Forum training facility. Chambers said the proposal gave him insight into how the Singham network operates, especially after he reviewed a sketched organizational chart. That structure made it clear that, regardless of the project, the PSL is at the center of the network, with each initiative ultimately designed to build the party.

Neville Singham, too, appeared to exercise an iron grip on the network. While the network may rely on various public-facing figures and young-adult activists for social-media promotion, Chambers said Singham still advances a “firm agenda” and coordinates activity through private chats.

The allegations leveled across Chambers’s multiday airing of dirty laundry paint a picture of the Singham network as focused on unifying the often fractious and disorganized radical Left under the control of one man and one party. At the same time, they leave opponents of the Singham Network with lots of questions. If not Chambers, then who else might have capitulated to their proposals—and under what terms? If the Party for Socialism and Liberation sits at the fulcrum of the Singham network’s American arm, should lawmakers focus more closely on that organization?

Congressional scrutiny of the Singham network has recently intensified. Several House committees have sought documentation from affiliated organizations. Lawmakers have also referred The People’s Forum to the IRS, urging review and possible revocation of its tax-exempt status, and asked then-Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate Singham under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

The congressional inquiries now underway may help establish a public record concerning this influence network, but Singham’s cooperation is unlikely. Since he lives in China, he can refuse cooperation indefinitely or simply wait out the current administration. More effective scrutiny would likely focus on the PSL’s domestic infrastructure, especially insofar as it is involved in coordinating large-scale unrest.

The PSL does not publicly disclose official membership figures, but it claims to operate in “over 50 cities.” The party’s financial structure is similarly opaque. Donations to the PSL are processed through Liberation News, the organization’s official newspaper.

The organization also invests heavily in long-term physical infrastructure. Over the past several years, the PSL has established more than a dozen Liberation Centers in multiple American cities, including a soon-to-be-opened facility in Washington, D.C. These centers function as hubs for protest coordination, coalition-building, political education, and cadre development.

Taken together, Chambers’s allegations, the congressional inquiries, and the Singham network’s footprint raise a pointed question about the entire ecosystem: Is this a loose collection of allied organizations and projects, or a coordinated influence operation shaped by a small circle of confidants around Neville Roy Singham together building a “vanguard” party? The evidence increasingly points toward the latter.

In the course of the public feuding, Chambers has also inadvertently drawn attention to the network’s core organizing hub, the PSL, which he says ultimately anchors the broader system. If that is the case, government scrutiny should not be applied piecemeal across the broad array of peripheral organizations. It must reach the structure at the center of the system, where influence and coordination converge, and where critics, both left and right, argue real control ultimately lies.

LLM (google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-20260507) summary:

• Ipo Urgency: the artificial race between openai and anthropic seeks to capture investor capital before market sentiment for inflated tech valuations sours
• Market Saturation: limited pools of available cash mean that companies trailing in the public offering timeline risk being starved of necessary funding
• First Mover Advantage: listing status provides early access to liquidity which can settle internal pressures and satisfy employee compensation demands regardless of share performance
• Clustered Listings: historical data suggests that industry groupings of initial public offerings lead to diminishing returns for those that hesitate
• Capital Competition: inevitable liquidity drain from massive planned offerings like spacex will likely force greedy ai firms to accelerate their timelines
• Valuation Inflation: absurdly high target valuations in the trillions reveal a speculative fever that thrives on unchecked optimism regardless of fundamental worth
• Precedent Risks: using the lift and uber collapse as a cautionary tale demonstrates how early failures can poison the well for subsequent market entrants
• Transformation Doubt: the outcome of these listings will likely expose whether the ai industry provides genuine value or represents another classic bubble in the making

By

Asa Fitch

June 1, 2026 5:30 am ET

18

---

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, left, and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei. Florian Gaertner/Photothek/Getty Images; Chance Yeh/Getty Images

In the bitter rivalry between AI heavyweights OpenAI and Anthropic, it will mostly be who has the best technology that determines the ultimate victor. But which one of them gets to its public offering first matters a great deal, too.

The window for initial public offerings is decidedly open, with a receptive market. Cerebras, an AI-chip company, rose 68% on its first day of trading last month. Only digital-design platform Figma’s absurd 250% rise last year was bigger for a company valued at more than $10 billion at listing in the past five years, according to FactSet data.

Elon Musk’s SpaceX plans to follow up this summer in what may well be the largest IPO in history—with a targeted valuation of $1.5 trillion. That will add more heat to the IPO cauldron.

Created with Highcharts 9.0.1Hot MarketLargest first-day price rise, IPOs of firms worth over $10 billion since June​2021Source: FactSet

Created with Highcharts 9.0.1FigmaCerebras SystemsToastFermiOn HoldingMedlineArxisMobileye GlobalGitLabFreshworks0%50100150200250300

This is all the more reason for OpenAI and Anthropic to try to be the first big artificial-intelligence-model developer to go public.

There are some clear advantages to being first out of the gate. Just as importantly, there are major disadvantages in being second.

Academic research has shown that IPOs tend to come in industry clusters, and that companies listing later in a cycle don’t tend to perform as well. That stands to reason, given that higher-quality companies with deeper moats tend to go public early, triggering a barrage of followers that might not be as strong.

And even in a hot market, there isn’t an infinite amount of money to go around. Investors may rotate out of other stocks to pile into SpaceX, then do more reshuffling to make bets on OpenAI and Anthropic later this year or next. The one that goes first is likely to gobble up more of the increasingly scarce capital.

And both OpenAI and Anthropic are looking for sky-high valuations. Anthropic raised money recently at a valuation approaching $1 trillion. OpenAI was last valued in March at $852 billion.

“There’s only so much oxygen in the room,” said Patrick Healy, founder of Issuer Network, which advises companies going public on leading U.S. exchanges. “SpaceX is going to consume an absolute ton of capital, and the guy that goes second is going to have a better position than the guy that goes third.”

For the better-run company—in this case Anthropic, headed by Dario Amodei—the cost of waiting may be especially large. A lukewarm market reception for an early OpenAI listing, which seems plausible given the steady drumbeat of dysfunction at the Sam Altman-led company, could force Anthropic to delay or scale back.

That is just what happened in 2019, when ride-hailing rivals Lyft and Uber Technologies went public. Lyft, the smaller of the two, was first out of the gate with an IPO that didn’t live up to its hype.

A post-IPO decline in the stock directly affected Uber’s listing two months later. Uber cut its target valuation, but its shares still fell after its debut, even in a market where other tech listings had been doing well.

Going first isn’t risk-free either, of course. The first to list risks that the market takes time to reflect its value, given that it is in a nascent industry without much of a track record. 

That has happened with tech listings in the past. Facebook’s stock lost more than half its value in its first three months of trading in 2012 amid worry about whether it could adapt to a shift toward mobile-phone ads. It later went on a sustained upward run as the company showed its resilience and investors grew more comfortable with its business model. But other companies that had been itching to list—notably Twitter—ended up having to wait.

Importantly though, even when the market’s initial verdict is negative, Facebook and other early IPO movers got to reap the benefits of being public as they waited for their shares to recover. This includes whatever money is raised from the IPO, and keeping employees happy by allowing them to cash out.

Those factors add urgency to OpenAI and Anthropic’s IPOs, both of which could come this year. OpenAI has been working with bankers to file initial IPO paperwork and could do so shortly. Anthropic’s timeline is less clear.

Which gets there first—and how markets react to it—could help shape the future of the two companies and the next phase of the AI boom, either underlining the market’s confidence in AI’s transformative power or delivering a warning about its excesses. The stakes are high indeed.

Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Asa Fitch is a writer covering technology for The Wall Street Journal’s Heard on the Street column, based in New York. He also co-writes the Journal's weekly AI & Business newsletter. Asa previously reported on semiconductor companies from the Journal’s San Francisco and New York bureaus, where he covered Nvidia’s rise amid the AI boom and Intel’s struggles to turn itself around.

Prior to that, Asa spent a decade as a foreign correspondent in the Middle East. He joined the Journal in Dubai, where he initially covered business and finance before shifting to covering regional politics and conflicts. He covered the Gaza War in 2014, the military campaign against Islamic State in Iraq, the Yemeni civil war, and Iranian elections and politics, including the country’s nuclear deal in 2015.

Asa began his career as a general-news reporter in Connecticut and a personal finance reporter in New York. He is a graduate of Carleton College and Columbia University's journalism school.