The Justice Department announced May 13, 2026, that it has settled *Berenson v. Biden*, a federal lawsuit alleging that the Biden administration coerced Twitter to suppress the speech of a private citizen in violation of the First Amendment [1]. The department stated that the agreement resolves the litigation without further court proceedings and that protecting constitutional speech rights is a departmental priority [1].
The case, docketed as No. 25-2709 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arose from claims that Biden administration officials applied pressure to social media platforms to remove or limit content related to COVID-19 and elections [1]. The plaintiff, journalist and author Alex Berenson, contended that coordinated government-to-platform communications crossed the constitutional line from permissible persuasion into coercive suppression of protected speech. The First Amendment restricts government actors, not private companies, but courts have recognized that sustained official pressure compelling a private party to silence speech can constitute a government violation. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche framed the settlement as consistent with the current administration's commitment to free expression [1].
The settlement follows a broader pattern of litigation challenging government-platform coordination during the pandemic and the 2020 election cycle. The Supreme Court addressed related questions in *Murthy v. Missouri*, 603 U.S. 43 (2024), where the Court reversed an injunction against several federal agencies on standing grounds, leaving unresolved the underlying merits of whether government jawboning of social media platforms violates the First Amendment. Berenson's case proceeded on a narrower, plaintiff-specific factual record, which may have made settlement more tractable than the multi-plaintiff posture in *Murthy*.
With the settlement now announced, the Second Circuit appeal is expected to be dismissed or held in abeyance pending formal documentation of the agreement's terms [1]. The specific remedial provisions, including whether monetary relief, a consent decree, or injunctive language are included, have not been disclosed publicly. The current DOJ's willingness to resolve the case on plaintiff-favorable terms reflects a deliberate policy reversal: where the Biden DOJ defended the administration's communications with platforms, the Trump DOJ has cast the same conduct as a constitutional violation warranting correction.
The settlement's precedential weight will depend on its terms. A consent decree with injunctive provisions could constrain how future administrations communicate with social media companies. A pure monetary settlement, by contrast, resolves the dispute between the parties without binding the government's future conduct.