By Don Terry | Sunday, January 8, 2025 | 5 min read
In a shocking development, one of the world’s most powerful tech companies appears to have bowed to Donald Trump’s demands. Meta, the parent company of Facebook, has announced the removal of its fact-checking program, publicly credited Trump for his election victory, and even appointed a Trump ally to its governing board.
This isn’t just another headline about Big Tech. It’s a seismic shift with far-reaching implications for politics, democracy, and the flow of information. Meta isn’t a small-town newspaper or a niche cable network—it’s a trillion-dollar corporation that influences the lives of nearly 3 billion people around the world. And at its helm is Mark Zuckerberg, one of the richest and most influential individuals alive.
Zuckerberg recently met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, and today’s announcements appear to stem from that meeting. In a high-profile rollout broadcast on Fox News, Zuckerberg declared that Meta was abandoning its fact-checking initiatives. His words were blunt: “We’re going to get rid of fact-checkers.”
This announcement marks a critical turning point. Zuckerberg framed the decision as a response to the latest elections, expressing his desire to work closely with Trump. The message was clear: Meta is entering a new era, one that prioritizes content aligned with Trump’s vision over independent fact-checking.
The End of Fact-Checking at Meta
Meta’s decision to dismantle its fact-checking system is a major departure from its previous efforts to combat misinformation on Facebook and Instagram. In its place, the company is rolling out a feature called “community notes,” which takes a crowdsourced approach to flagging false or misleading content. This strategy mirrors the approach Elon Musk has taken on X (formerly Twitter). Zuckerberg even cited Musk and Trump as key inspirations for the shift.
The move comes as a surprise, especially since Zuckerberg previously scaled back political content on Meta’s platforms, citing concerns about user “stress.” Now, he claims there’s renewed demand for civic and political content, and Meta is planning to reintroduce such material across Facebook, Instagram, and Threads.
But the decision to scrap fact-checking raises serious concerns. Social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram hold far more sway than traditional media outlets, and eliminating safeguards against misinformation risks amplifying false narratives. Unlike news organizations that verify facts before publishing, Meta’s new approach seems focused on volume over accuracy—all under the banner of “free expression.”
Zuckerberg acknowledged the risks, saying, “The reality is that this is a trade-off. It means we’re going to catch less bad stuff, but we’ll also reduce the number of innocent people’s posts and accounts that we accidentally take down.”
A Deepening Alliance with Trump
Meta’s recent actions signal more than just a policy change—they point to a growing alignment with Trump. The relationship between Zuckerberg and Trump has been complicated. While Meta famously banned Trump from Facebook following the January 6 insurrection, Zuckerberg has also faced public threats from the former president. Now, however, Zuckerberg seems to be moving toward a collaborative relationship.
Meta has even brought in a Republican operative known for being Trump-friendly to help implement these changes. This operative appeared on Fox News to present the policy shift as a return to Meta’s “founding values” of free expression. But critics argue that this realignment compromises Meta’s independence, tying the company’s decisions too closely to political forces.
Perhaps the most eyebrow-raising move is Meta’s decision to appoint Dana White, president of the UFC and a close Trump confidant, to its board of directors. White, who has no background in tech or business at this scale, is joining a board that typically includes leaders with expertise in technology and finance. His primary qualification seems to be his relationship with Trump, a fact touted by Fox News as an asset.
This isn’t business as usual. White’s appointment effectively gives Trump a direct line of influence within one of the most powerful companies in the world. It’s also a sharp contrast to Zuckerberg’s earlier approach. In 2016, for instance, Zuckerberg emphasized efforts to combat election interference and promote factual information. That ethos seems to have been abandoned.
Business Pressures and Political Maneuvering
Meta’s pivot comes as the company faces significant regulatory challenges. The Federal Trade Commission is preparing to take Meta to trial in a high-stakes antitrust case, and Trump’s influence as president-elect could play a role in how those proceedings unfold.
For years, conservatives have accused Meta of being biased against right-wing voices, despite evidence showing otherwise. After Trump was banned from the platform in 2021, his allies doubled down on claims that Meta was silencing conservative perspectives. Now, instead of defending its fact-checking policies, Meta appears to be giving in to these criticisms, signaling a willingness to placate Trump and his base.
This marks a stark departure from Zuckerberg’s earlier stance. In 2018, he admitted that Meta had failed to take its responsibilities seriously, saying, “We didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake. I’m sorry. I started Facebook. I run it. And I’m responsible for what happens here.”
Today, however, Zuckerberg seems to be taking a different approach—one that prioritizes political alliances over accountability.
The Larger Implications for Democracy
This isn’t just about one company’s business strategy—it’s about the future of democracy. Meta wields unparalleled power over the flow of information, shaping what billions of people see and believe. By removing critical safeguards like fact-checking, it risks becoming a breeding ground for misinformation and propaganda.
The ripple effects could extend far beyond the United States. Governments around the world, from Canada to Germany to the UK, may need to reevaluate their relationships with companies like Meta. Some may even question whether these platforms are compatible with their national security interests.
Ultimately, the question isn’t just about what’s best for Meta or Trump—it’s about what’s best for society as a whole. At a time when the integrity of information is under siege, decisions like these have the potential to reshape the political landscape, for better or worse.

Copyright 2024 FN, NewsRoom.