Politics
Inside Mark Zuckerberg’s Sprint to Remake Meta for the Trump Era
Mark Zuckerberg kept the circle of people who knew his thinking small.
Last month, Mr. Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Meta, tapped a handful of top policy and communications executives and others to discuss the company’s approach to online speech. He had decided to make sweeping changes after visiting President-elect Donald J. Trump at Mar-a-Lago over Thanksgiving. Now he needed his employees to turn those changes into policy.
Over the next few weeks, Mr. Zuckerberg and his handpicked team discussed how to do that in Zoom meetings, conference calls and late-night group chats. Some subordinates stole away from family dinners and holiday gatherings to work, while Mr. Zuckerberg weighed in between trips to his homes in the San Francisco Bay Area and the island of Kauai.
By New Year’s Day, Mr. Zuckerberg was ready to go public with the changes, according to four current and former Meta employees and advisers with knowledge of the events, who were not authorized to speak publicly about the confidential discussions.
The entire process was highly unusual. Meta typically alters policies that govern its apps — which include Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads — by inviting employees, civic leaders and others to weigh in. Any shifts generally take months. But Mr. Zuckerberg turned this latest effort into a closely held six-week sprint, blindsiding even employees on his policy and integrity teams.
On Tuesday, most of Meta’s 72,000 employees learned of Mr. Zuckerberg’s plans along with the rest of the world. The Silicon Valley giant said it was overhauling speech on its apps by loosening restrictions on how people can talk about contentious social issues such as immigration, gender and sexuality. It killed its fact-checking program that had been aimed at curbing misinformation and said it would instead rely on users to police falsehoods. And it said it would insert more political content into people’s feeds after previously de-emphasizing that very material.
In the days since, the moves — which have sweeping implications for what people will see online — have drawn applause from Mr. Trump and conservatives, derision from fact-checking groups and misinformation researchers, and concerns from L.G.B.T.Q. advocacy groups that fear the changes will lead to more people getting harassed online and offline.
Inside Meta, the reaction has been sharply divided. Some employees have celebrated the moves, while others were shocked and have openly castigated the changes on the company’s internal message boards. Several employees wrote that they were ashamed to work for Meta.
On Friday, Meta’s makeover continued when the company told employees that it would end its work on diversity, equity and inclusion. It eliminated its chief diversity officer role, ended its diversity hiring goals that called for the employment of a certain number of women and minorities, and said it would no longer prioritize minority-owned businesses when hiring vendors.
Meta planned to “focus on how to apply fair and consistent practices that mitigate bias for all, no matter your background,” Janelle Gale, vice president of human resources, said in an internal post that was relayed to The New York Times.
In interviews, more than a dozen current and former Meta employees, executives and advisers to Mr. Zuckerberg described his shift as serving a dual purpose. It positions Meta for the political landscape of the moment, with conservative power ascendant in Washington as Mr. Trump takes office on Jan. 20. More than that, the changes reflect Mr. Zuckerberg’s personal views of how his $1.5 trillion company should be run — and he no longer wants to keep those views quiet.
Mr. Zuckerberg, 40, has regularly spoken to friends and colleagues, including Marc Andreessen, the venture capitalist and Meta board member, about concerns that progressives are policing speech, the people said. He has also felt railroaded by what he views as the Biden administration’s anti-tech posturing, and stung by what he sees as progressives in the media and in Silicon Valley — including in Meta’s work force — pushing him to take a heavy hand in policing discourse, they said.
Meta declined to comment.
In an interview with the podcaster Joe Rogan on Friday, Mr. Zuckerberg said it was time to go “back to our original mission” by giving people “the power to share.” He said he had felt pressured by the Biden administration and the media to “censor” certain content, adding, “I have a much greater command now of what I think the policy should be, and this is how it’s going to be going forward.”
The latest changes were catalyzed by Mr. Trump’s victory in November. That month, Mr. Zuckerberg flew to Florida to meet with Mr. Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Meta later donated $1 million to the president-elect’s inaugural fund.
At Meta, Mr. Zuckerberg began preparing to change speech policies. Knowing that any moves would be contentious, he assembled a team of no more than a dozen close advisers and lieutenants, including Joel Kaplan, a longtime policy executive with strong ties to the Republican Party; Kevin Martin, the head of U.S. policy; and David Ginsberg, the head of communications. Mr. Zuckerberg insisted on no leaks, the people with knowledge of the effort said.
The group worked on revising Meta’s “Hate Speech” policy, with Mr. Zuckerberg leading the charge, they said. They changed the name of the policy, which lays out what to do with slurs, threats against protected groups and other harmful content on its apps, to “Hateful Conduct.”
That effectively shifted the emphasis of the rules away from speech, minimizing Meta’s role in policing online conversation. Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Martin were cheerleaders of the changes, these people said.
Mr. Zuckerberg decided to promote Mr. Kaplan to Meta’s head of global public policy to carry out the changes and deepen Meta’s ties to the incoming Trump administration, replacing Nick Clegg, a former deputy prime minister of Britain who had handled policy and regulatory issues globally for Meta since 2018. The night before Meta’s announcement, Mr. Kaplan held individual calls with top conservative social media influencers, two people said.
On Tuesday, Mr. Zuckerberg made the new speech policies public in his Instagram video. Mr. Kaplan appeared on “Fox & Friends,” a mainstay of Mr. Trump’s media diet, saying Meta’s fact-checking partners “had too much political bias.”
(Fact-checking groups that worked with Meta have said they had no role in deciding what the company did with the content that was fact-checked.)
Among its changes, Meta loosened rules so people could post statements saying they hated people of certain races, religions or sexual orientations, including permitting “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation.” The company cited political discourse about transgender rights for the change. It also removed a rule that forbade users to say people of certain races were responsible for spreading the coronavirus.
Some training materials that Meta created for the new policies were confusing and contradictory, two employees who reviewed the documents said. Some of the text said saying that “white people have mental illness” would be prohibited on Facebook, but saying that “gay people have mental illness” was allowed, they said.
Meta locked access to the policies and training materials internally late on Thursday, they said, hours after The Intercept published excerpts.
The company also removed the transgender and nonbinary “themes” on its Messenger chat app, which allows users to customize the app’s colors and wallpaper, two employees said. The change was reported earlier by 404 Media.
That same day at Meta’s offices in Silicon Valley, Texas and New York, facilities managers were instructed to remove tampons from men’s bathrooms, which the company had provided for nonbinary and transgender employees who use the men’s room and who may have required sanitary pads, two employees said.
Some employees were livid at what they saw as efforts by executives to hide changes to the “Hateful Conduct” policy before it was announced, two people said. While people across the policy division typically view and comment on significant revisions, most did not have the opportunity this time.
On Workplace, Meta’s Slack-like internal communications software, employees began arguing over the changes. In the @Pride employee resource group, where workers who support L.G.B.T.Q. issues convene, at least one person announced their resignation as others privately relayed to one another that they planned to look for jobs elsewhere, two people said.
In a post this week to the @Pride group, Alex Schultz, Meta’s chief marketing officer, defended Mr. Zuckerberg and said topics like transgender issues had become politicized. He said Meta’s policies should not get in the way of allowing societal debate and pointed to Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion case, as an example of “courts getting ahead of society” in the 1970s. Mr. Schultz said the courts had “politicized” the issue instead of allowing it to be debated civically.
“You find topics become politicized and stay in the political conversation for far longer than they would’ve if society just debated them out,” Mr. Schultz wrote. He said looser restrictions on speech in Meta’s apps would allow for this kind of debate.
Mr. Zuckerberg traveled to Palm Beach, Fla., this week, four people with knowledge of his activities said, and on Friday was said to have been at Mar-a-Lago.
In his interview with Mr. Rogan, Mr. Zuckerberg denied making sweeping changes to appease the incoming Trump administration, but said the election did influence his thinking.
“The good thing about doing it after the election is you get to take this cultural pulse,” he said. “We got to this point where there were these things that you couldn’t say that were just mainstream discourse.”
Theodore Schleifer, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan contributed reporting.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
FIRST ON FOX: A Senate Republican wants to know the exact cost of a partial government shutdown as GOP and Democratic leaders are at an impasse to keep the government open.
Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, called on the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to provide a detailed report on the sprawling impact that a partial government shutdown could have, including payments throughout the federal government and the possible broader economic impact.
The House GOP passed its short-term funding extension, known as a continuing resolution (CR) last week, but the bill was later blocked by Senate Democrats. For now, Republicans and Democrats in the upper chamber are at odds on a plan to keep the government open.
And the deadline to fund the government by Sept. 30 is fast-approaching.
TOP HOUSE DEM FIRES BACK AT TRUMP’S ‘UNHINGED’ SHUTDOWN REMARKS AMID COLLAPSE OF GOV FUNDING TALKS
Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, called on the Congressional Budget Office to produce a report on the economic impact that a possible government shutdown could have. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Ernst, who chairs the Senate DOGE Caucus named after tech-billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, laid the fault of a potential shutdown on Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., in her letter to CBO Director Phillip Swagel.
“The same politicians who whined and complained about the Department of Government Efficiency laying off unnecessary bureaucrats just a few months ago are now forcing a government-wide shutdown themselves to expose who is and isn’t an essential employee,” she wrote.
Ernst requested a sweeping economic operational impact analysis from the agency, including how a shutdown could affect back pay costs for furloughed non-essential employees, military pay, congressional pay and the broader economic impact that the government closing could have on the private sector.
TRUMP CANCELS MEETING WITH SCHUMER, JEFFRIES OVER ‘RIDICULOUS DEMANDS’ AS FUNDING DEADLINE LOOMS
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer speaks with reporters outside the Senate Chamber at the Capitol on Sept. 10, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)
Specifically, she wanted to know how businesses could be impacted by a temporary stoppage of government services, like loans, permits and certifications, and how companies and businesses could recoup losses after a shutdown ended.
She also wanted information on lost efficiencies in the government and the costs that could accrue from unfulfilled procurements or allowing contracts to lapse, and whether the burden of keeping national parks open would fall onto the states or if they’d be shuttered, too.
The CBO did provide an analysis of the cost of the last time the government shuttered in 2019, when Schumer and President Donald Trump were at odds on providing funding to construct a wall at the southern border. That 35-day shutdown was the longest in U.S. history, and no funding for a border wall was granted.
The report, published in January 2019, found that the shutdown saw roughly $18 billion in federal spending delayed, which led to a dip in that year’s first quarter gross domestic product of $8 billion. The report noted roughly $3 billion of that would not be recovered.
THUNE SLAMS DEMOCRATS’ ‘COLD-BLOODED PARTISAN’ TACTICS AS FUNDING DEADLINE NEARS
President Donald Trump steps off Air Force One in Arizona after arriving for the memorial service for political activist Charlie Kirk at State Farm Stadium, on Sept. 21, 2025 in Glendale, Arizona. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
It also found that federal workers who received delayed payments and private businesses were the hardest hit.
“Some of those private-sector entities will never recoup that lost income,” the report stated.
It remains unclear whether Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Schumer can strike a deal. After Trump canceled a planned meeting Tuesday with Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., both Democrats blamed the president for the looming shutdown.
However, Democrats’ asking price for a short-term funding extension is too high for Republicans.
They want permanent extensions to Affordable Care Act subsidies, a full repeal of the “big, beautiful bill”s health care title, which includes the $50 billion rural hospital fund, and a clawback of the canceled funding for NPR and PBS.
“Once again, Donald Trump has shown the American people he is not up to the job,” Schumer said. “It’s a very simple job: sit down and negotiate with the Democratic leaders and come to an agreement, but he just ain’t up to it. He runs away before the negotiations even begin.”
As one way to keep tabs on President Trump’s state of mind, I’m on his email fundraising lists. Lately his 79-year-old mind has seemed to be on his mortality.
“I want to try and get to heaven” has been the subject line on roughly a half-dozen Trump emails since mid-August. Oddly, one arrived earlier this month on the same day that the commander in chief separately posted on social media a meme of himself as “Apocalypse Now” character Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore, satisfyingly surveying the hellish conflagration that his helicopters had wreaked, not on Vietnam but on Chicago. “Chipocalypse” was Trump’s warning to the next U.S. city that he might militarize.
Mixed messages, to be sure.
The president hasn’t limited his celestial contemplations to online outlets. “I want to try and get to heaven, if possible,” he told the hosts of “Fox & Friends” in August, by way of explaining his (failed) effort to bring peace to Ukraine. “I’m hearing I’m not doing well.”
Well, Mr. President, here’s some advice: I don’t think you’ll get to heaven by wishing that many of your fellow citizens go to hell.
The disconnect between Trump’s dreams of eternal reward and his earthly avenging — against Democrat-run cities, political rivals, late-show hosts and other celebrity critics, universities, law firms, cultural institutions, TV networks and newspapers, liberal groups and donors, government employees, insufficiently loyal allies and even harmless protesters at a Washington restaurant — was rarely so evident as it was at the Christian revival that was Sunday’s memorial for the slain MAGA activist Charlie Kirk at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Ariz.
Mere minutes after Erika Kirk, Kirk’s widow and successor as head of the conservative group Turning Point USA, had tearfully forgiven her husband’s accused killer, the president explicitly contradicted her with a message of hate toward his own enemies, and his continued determination to exact revenge.
Erika Kirk spoke of “Charlie’s mission” of engaging his critics and working “to save young men just like the one who took his life.” She recalled the crucified Christ absolving his executioners on Calvary, then emotionally added: “That young man. I forgive him.”
“I forgive him because it was what Christ did and what Charlie would do,” she said to applause. “The answer to hate is not hate. The answer, we know from the Gospel, is love and always love. Love for our enemies and love for those who persecute us.”
Then it was Trump’s turn.
Just one minute in, he called the 22-year-old suspect “a radicalized cold-blooded monster.” And throughout, despite investigators’ belief that the man acted alone, Trump reiterated for the umpteenth time since Kirk’s death that “radical left lunatics” — his phrase for Democrats — actually were responsible and that the Justice Department would round up those complicit for retribution.
Trump acknowledged that Charlie Kirk probably wouldn’t agree with his approach: “He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them.” Then Teleprompter Trump went off script, reverting to real Trump and ad-libbing: “That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them.” He spat the word “hate” with venom. And he got applause, just as Erika Kirk had for a very different message.
Jesus counseled “turn the other cheek” to rebuke those who harm us. Trump boasts that he always punches back. “If someone screws you, screw them back 10 times harder,” he once said. Love your enemies, as Christ commanded in his Sermon on the Mount? Nah. You heard Trump in Arizona: “I hate my opponent.”
Trump might have some explaining to do when he seeks admittance at the pearly gates.
The Bible’s words aside, a president is supposed to be the comforter in chief after a tragedy and a uniter when divisions rend the American fabric. Think of President Clinton, whose oratory bridged partisan fissures after antigovernment domestic terrorists bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, killing 168 people, and of President George W. Bush, who visited a mosque in Washington after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, in a healing gesture intended to blunt rising anti-Muslim reactions. (Later, of course, Bush would cleave the nation by invading Iraq based on a lie about its complicity.)
Trump, by contrast, is the inciter in chief. Just hours after Kirk’s death on Sept. 10, and before a suspect was in custody, he addressed the nation, blaming “radical left political violence.” He has repeated that indictment nearly every day since, though the FBI has reported for years — including during his first term — that domestic right-wing violence is the greater threat. “We have to beat the hell out of them,” Trump told reporters. When even one of his friends on “Fox & Friends” noted radicals are on the right as well, Trump replied: “I couldn’t care less. … The radicals on the left are the problem, and they’re vicious and they’re horrible.”
All of this vituperation and vengeance suggests a big “what if”: What if Trump were more like Charlie Kirk? To ask is not to gloss over Kirk’s controversial utterances against Black Americans, gay and transgender Americans and others, but he did respectfully deal with those who disagreed with him — as he was doing when he was shot.
What if Trump, since 2016, had sincerely tried to broaden his political reach, as presidential nominees and presidents of each party historically did, to embrace his opponents and to compromise with them? What if he governed for all Americans and not just his MAGA voters? He might well have enacted bipartisan laws of the sort that Trump 1.0 promised on immigration, gun safety, infrastructure and more. In general we’d all be better off, less polarized.
And with a more magnanimous approach like that, Trump just might have a better chance at getting into heaven.
Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
This is cobbled together from speaking to multiple sources on both sides of the Capitol.
The House is now aiming to vote Thursday on the “clean” interim spending bill which would fund the government through November 27. But Republicans must first get the bill through the House. Several senior House Republican sources said that they were still talking to the “usual suspects.” Republicans can only lose two votes pass a bill on their own. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) expressed confidence he could hold all of his Democrats together and oppose the bill. Jeffries said that will be the focus of a Democratic Caucus on Thursday.
TRUMP PRESSURES REPUBLICANS TO PASS A CONTINUING RESOLUTION TO AVERT A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN
It is also still not a done deal that the House would move on Thursday. This could slip to Friday.
There is now the distinct possibility of a weekend session in the Senate, potentially Saturday.
Here’s why:
If the House approves the government funding package, this must go through two rounds of “cloture” to break a filibuster. That needs 60 yeas. It is advantageous to Senate Republicans to have the House approve the bill Thursday. If so, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) can file cloture to set up a test vote on Saturday. By rule, the Senate cannot take that test vote without an “intervening day.”
SCOOP: GOP RAMPS UP SHUTDOWN FIGHT, TARGETS 25 VULNERABLE DEMOCRATS IN NEW AD BLITZ
To wit:
Let’s say the House theoretically approves the bill on Thursday. Thune gets the bill on Thursday and files cloture to cut off debate and break a filibuster. Friday is the “intervening day.” That tees up a procedural vote just to get onto the bill (needing 60 yeas) on Saturday in the Senate.
A split image of President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader John Thune. ((Left) REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst, (Right) REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz)
But if the House votes (and passes) the CR on Friday, none of this can happen until Sunday.
There’s the rub:
Multiple Senate Republicans want to attend Charlie Kirk’s funeral in Arizona on Sunday.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., right, joined by Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., center left, leads a vigil to honor conservative activist Charlie Kirk who was shot and killed at an event in Utah last week, at the Capitol in Washington, Monday, Sept. 15, 2025. (AP/J. Scott Applewhite)
So, a Saturday scenario is much better for the GOP.
Why not wait until Monday, you may ask?
GOP LAWMAKERS CLASH OVER STRATEGY TO AVERT GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN CRISIS
Well, the Senate is scheduled to be out for Rosh Hashanah next week. Same with the House. Rosh Hashanah begins at sundown Monday and runs through nightfall Wednesday. So the Senate could punt and deal with next Thursday. However, the Senate also needs to take another procedural vote down the road if it could ever get 60 yeas (more on that in a moment) to finish the bill. So it may be helpful to do this sooner rather than later.
That said, one senior Senate GOP source suggested to Fox that the Senate could remain in session through Rosh Hashanah to deal with the procedural steps. That could be interpreted as a direct sleight to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the highest-ranking Jewish figure in American political history.
Former Sen. Joe Manchin, I-W.V., wanted Republicans to win the Senate in 2024 to halt Democrats from getting rid of the Senate filibuster. (Nathan Howard/Getty Images)
Keep in mind, the government is funded through 11:59:59 pm et on September 30. So they have time. But the period is collapsed because of the scheduled recess next week.
Regardless, the Senate needs 60 yeas to break a filibuster. Republicans only have 53 votes in the Senate. 52 if Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) opposes an interim spending bill.
This is why Republicans are trying to blame a potential shutdown on the Democrats. And Democrats are saying they need something (likely a renewal of Obamacare subsidies) in exchange for their votes.
And there will likely be a lot more drama between now and the end of the month.
Special Olympics Wyoming seeking volunteers for state fall tournament
Ripple Highlights Transatlantic Initiative as Blueprint for Global Crypto Regulation
Dividend Stability and Regional Strength: The Case for Truist Financial (TFC)
Donald Trump Fitness: Can His Golf Workouts Replace the Gym? Explore Trump’s Golf Exercise Routine and Health Benefits
They Call Him OG Movie Review: Action-packed yet narratively uneven gangster drama
Why Marjorie Taylor Greene was ‘kicked out’ of the Freedom Caucus according to Rep. Buck
Colorado Rockies game no. 116 thread: Zac Gallen vs José Ureña
See it: Tesla crashes into Columbus convention center at 70 mph
Fox News Politics: Georgia the whole day through
Death of missing Oregon girl found in stream ruled homicide
Read the Letter to the Inspectors General
GOP senator blasts Schumer, Dems as 'forcing' shutdown while demanding price tag report
Palestine as a state – what would that actually look like?
Farage refuses to criticise Trump over paracetamol despite health experts dismissing autism claims
House plans Thursday vote on government funding bill to extend spending through November
-
Finance7 days agoReimagining Finance: Derek Kudsee on Coda’s AI-Powered Future
-
World6 days agoSyria’s new president takes center stage at UNGA as concerns linger over terrorist past
-
North Dakota6 days agoBoard approves Brent Sanford as new ‘commissioner’ of North Dakota University System
-
Technology6 days agoThese earbuds include a tiny wired microphone you can hold
-
Culture6 days agoTest Your Memory of These Classic Books for Young Readers
-
Crypto5 days agoTexas brothers charged in cryptocurrency kidnapping, robbery in MN
-
Crypto7 days agoEU Enforcers Arrest 5 Over €100M Cryptocurrency Scam – Law360
-
Rhode Island6 days agoThe Ocean State’s Bond With Robert Redford