Zuckerberg Sucked Up to Trump Adviser Before Changing Meta Rules

It didn’t take much to get Mark Zuckerberg to go along with Donald Trump’s aims.

According to The New York Times, Zuckerberg met with Trump adviser Stephen Miller in late November and was told by Miller that he could help America, but on Trump’s terms. Miller said that Trump was taking on diversity, equity, and inclusion principles, as well as cracking down on immigration.

Zuckerberg didn’t have a problem with any of it, the Times reported, citing anonymous sources. The Meta CEO told Miller and other Trump officials that he wouldn’t get in the way of Trump’s agenda and would focus on making tech products. He blamed the DEI initiatives at his company Meta on Sheryl Sandberg, his former chief operating officer, and said that things were changing at the company. This meant a reset, including layoffs.

In early January, Zuckerberg even gave Miller a private meeting where he explained the upcoming changes at Meta, and on January 10, the tech mogul announced to the public that Meta would be getting rid of its DEI policies.

The whole series of events indicates that Meta’s overhaul seems to have occurred in close coordination with Trump and his team, who are much more emboldened than they were eight years ago. Miller is more powerful now than he was in Trump’s first term, and has fewer internal opponents.

All of this doesn’t bode well for the next four years. Miller’s pet issue is immigration, and Trump has already pledged to begin mass deportations shortly after he is sworn in. Miller will be helping the president-elect draft many executive orders in the early weeks and months after the inauguration, and Republicans in Congress will only be too happy to help with extreme bills like the Laken Riley Act.

Zuckerberg isn’t the only tech baron falling in line behind Trump, as Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and others are changing their policies and sending the president-elect money. With loyal extremists like Miller in Trump’s inner circle, and the country’s powerful tech oligarchs staying out of his way, there aren’t many people capable of checking the next president.

It isn’t enough for the FBI’s DEI office to be shut down—Donald Trump wants it gutted, and with receipts.

“We demand that the FBI preserve and retain all records, documents, and information on the now closing DEI Office—Never should have been opened and, if it was, should have closed long ago,” the president-elect wrote on Truth Social. “Why is it that they’re closing one day before the Inauguration of a new Administration? The reason is, CORRUPTION!”

The FBI began phasing out the office, officially titled the “Office of Diversity and Inclusion,” or ODI, in December, the agency first confirmed to Fox News on Thursday.

The FBI came under fire recently as many on the right openly blamed the deadly truck attack on New Year’s Day in New Orleans on the agency’s DEI policies.

“The priority of the last four years has been DEI, not IEDs,” New York Republican Representative Dan Meuser told Fox News at the time. “You talk to anyone who’s willing to speak within these agencies, that’s what their focus has been.… President Trump’s a serious guy, he’s bringing in serious people. It’s not about DEI; it’s about the safety and security of the American people.”

“An FBI Agent with a nose ring who can barely speak coherent English sentences told the media that a terrorist driving a truck with an ISIS flag killing 10 Americans is NOT a terrorist attack!?!” conservative YouTuber and serial plagiarist Benny Johnson wrote on X, referring to a video of FBI Special Agent Alethea Duncan, who is Black, speaking perfect English at a press conference. “Seriously. Listen to this. We need Kash Patel NOW!”

The ODI office isn’t closing because of corruption, like Trump is claiming in all caps on Truth Social. It’s likely closing for the same reason Walmart, Meta, McDonald’s, and others are reneging on DEI policy: Trump is back. Either they’re caving to Trump in advance, or they’re excited to go mask-off again with their everyday bigotry.

“I feel liberated,” one top banker told the Financial Times on Tuesday. “We can say ‘retard’ and ‘pussy’ without the fear of getting cancelled.… It’s a new dawn.”

It’s also why the historically lauded Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department is in jeopardy too.

Republicans’ prized immigration bill, the Laken Riley Act, is apparently too expensive to implement, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

A new memo from ICE has been circulating in Senate offices that spells out the staggering cost of carrying out the bill if it were signed into law: $86 billion over three years, far exceeding House Republicans’ estimate last week of $3 billion per year. The memo gives a line-by-line assessment of the agency’s capacity to implement the act, saying that “full implementation would be impossible for ICE to execute within existing resources.”

If passed, the bill would allow the detention of undocumented immigrants merely suspected of committing a nonviolent crime, with no protections for children or DACA recipients, also known as Dreamers. The House has already voted to approve the bill, with 48 Democrats joining every Republican to send the bill to the Senate, where it is currently being debated after a Thursday vote was postponed.

More than 70 amendments to the bill have been filed, delaying its passage further. The bill enjoys support from Senate Democrats as well, and even has two Democratic co-sponsors in Ruben Gallego and John Fetterman. Among some of the most egregious (and expensive) parts of the bill is the power it grants to state and local governments to help carry out immigrant detention, and some of the amendments concern that provision.

In Republican-led states, such as Florida, Republican leaders are offering their resources to assist in detaining immigrants in accordance with this bill, as well as Donald Trump’s plans for mass deportation. But as this memo from ICE shows, the Laken Riley Act will result in chaos and massive costs for the U.S. immigration system, no matter how many states are on board. Ultimately, conservatives’ immigration dreams are just expensive fantasies.

Trump is appointing a group of aged action movie actors to serve as “ambassadors” to Hollywood.

“It is my honor to announce Jon Voight, Mel Gibson, and Sylvester Stallone, to be Special Ambassadors to a great but very troubled place, Hollywood, California,” the president-elect wrote on Truth Social Thursday. “They will serve as Special Envoys to me for the purpose of bringing Hollywood, which has lost much business over the last four years to Foreign Countries, BACK—BIGGER, BETTER, AND STRONGER THAN EVER BEFORE! These three very talented people will be my eyes and ears, and I will get done what they suggest. It will again be, like The United States of America itself, The Golden Age of Hollywood!”

Stallone, Voight, and Gibson have each come out in support of Trump in recent years. Stallone even called him the “second George Washington,” while Voight proclaimed him to be the “greatest president since Lincoln.” And Gibson, who happens to have a long history of antisemitism and racism, said Kamala Harris had the “IQ of a fence post.”

The announcement had mixed reactions. Trump supporters appeared to be giddy.

“Trump made Rocky and Braveheart ambassadors to Hollywood. We’re living in the best timeline,” said a large pro-Trump X account.

“A week ago, an action movie written by Sylvester Stallone dropped their trailer. It’s about human trafficking, run by corrupt government officials and the mob. It looks like Trump is expanding his influence to Hollywood, and I expect the Left to vehemently oppose this movie, just like they did with ‘Sound of Freedom,’” wrote another, making a blatant argument for state-sponsored conservative media propaganda.

Others noted the fitting selection of the three MAGA stars.

“Sylvester Stallone was a nightmare on set for decades, Mel Gibson is a racist antisemite, Jon Voight is estranged from his family and isn’t allowed to see his grandchildren. Perfect fit!” the Reverend John Donnelly wrote.

What Stallone, Gibson, and Voight will actually do as “special ambassadors” and how much influence they’ll actually have over the industry remains to be seen.

Donald Trump and JD Vance debuted new presidential and vice presidential portraits Thursday and, boy, are they weirdly sinister.

Daniel Torok, the president-elect’s chief photographer, revealed the portraits on X Wednesday evening. “We are entering the GOLDEN AGE OF AMERICA,” Torok wrote.

“They go hard,” wrote Trump’s transition team in a press release hyping the official portraits.

Clearly, the purpose of these photographs was to evoke some kind of masculine energy that would delight the manosphere. In Trump’s portrait, the president-elect went for a glowering stare reminiscent of his unsettlingly viral 2023 mugshot taken in Fulton County jail, which has appeared on everything from a commemorative $2 bill to NFT trading cards sold by the president-elect and his buddies.

This marks a significant departure from the toothy grin he sported in his portrait from 2017, signaling a new strongman Trump who wants everyone to think he’s really tough. To be sure, he does look kind of scary scary—but mostly because his partially cocked eyebrow manages to make his other eye appear somewhat collapsed.

There is also the shock of bright white light that makes the 78-year-old’s eyes appear the same color as his hair.

Meanwhile, Vance’s portrait showed off his startlingly blue eyes. Almost too blue, some felt.

Like Trump, Vance’s face also reflected a supernatural glow and a ghoulish gleam that painted his face in an entirely different color than his hands—something he could have in common with Trump, whose face is typically darkened to a burnt orange.

Despite their technical similarities, some online noted that the two portraits had extremely different vibes.

Secretary of State Anthony Blinken held his final press conference on Thursday, during which he kicked out a journalist for asking questions about Gaza. 

Reporter Sam Husseini tried to ask questions about U.S. policy regarding Israel’s war in Gaza early during the press conference, only to be told to wait until the end. When he persisted, he was physically removed from the room by three security guards.

Husseini posted on X after the incident, saying he was fine but had planned to ask several different questions, including about the Geneva Convention’s application to Gaza and Israel’s Hannibal directive, among other topics. But he never got the opportunity, and the whole  incident unfortunately encapsulates the Biden administration’s approach towards Israel and Gaza, especially in responding to questions from the press. 

For more than a year, following the October 7, 2023, attacks, the White House and State Department repeatedly masked Israel’s brutal actions in Gaza, ignoring and covering up possible war crimes while even lying to Congress. Alternative courses of action were dismissed, and deadlines made to the public were ignored. Even given the opportunity, Vice President Kamala Harris refused to break with White House policy while running for president, which may have cost her the 2024 election. 

Ultimately, Israel’s war, fueled by American weapons and protected by American diplomacy, officially killed more than 46,000 Palestinian civilians, likely a massive undercount according to analysts and human rights groups. Thursday’s press conference was a reminder that under Joe Biden, the United States has refused to acknowledge its role in the conflict or stand up to any scrutiny. And when Donald Trump is sworn into the White House on Monday, that’s not likely to change. 

Google announced its intention Thursday to flout European Union standards for digital fact-checking, opting not to build an internal department to moderate and verify YouTube content despite requirements from a new law.

The European Commission’s Disinformation Code of Practice has remained a voluntary policy, leaving the ball in the tech industry’s court. Companies that opted in to the code—including Meta, Microsoft, TikTok, and X—are supposed to self-regulate while submitting reports on their platform’s compliance with the code.

But a 2024 study published in the Internet Policy Review found that, by and large, companies were “only partly compliant” with the EU code, with reports data lacking detail and offering “missing, incomplete, or not robust” data. The EU has since urged companies to convert the voluntary guidelines into an official policy under the union’s newer content moderation law, the Digital Services Act of 2022.

Google has never had a fact-checking department to oversee content on YouTube, where users reportedly upload more than 500 hours of video content every minute, and on average consume a collective one billion hours of content per day, according to YouTube’s blog. The law would require Google to build fact-checking into its search function, its ranking systems, and its algorithm, as well as adding fact-checked results alongside YouTube videos.

The search engine behemoth’s global affairs president Kent Walker rejected the mandatory new standards in a letter to deputy director general Renate Nikolay, claiming that the code “simply isn’t appropriate or effective for our services,” according to Axios. Walker instead pointed to a new feature that was implemented on YouTube in 2024, allowing users to communally verify information themselves, akin to X’s “Community Notes.”

Google will “pull out of all fact-checking commitments in the Code before it becomes a DSA Code of Conduct,” Walker wrote.

But Google isn’t the only company skirting its disinformation commitments. Meta and X have heavily reduced their content moderation policies, allowing disturbing language to circulate openly on their platforms.

Earlier this month, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that the social media company would rid itself of its third-party fact-checkers, opting instead to replace them with user-generated corrections.

“Fact-checkers have been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created,” Zuckerberg said in a video announcement posted to Facebook. “What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas, and it’s gone too far.”

In the background of their internal decisions, a cohort of Silicon Valley’s most successful figures have donated millions to Donald Trump’s inaugural fund, seemingly caving to the incoming forty-seventh president in an apparent bid to make Trump’s second term as friendly to their massive tech and AI corporations as possible.

Rudy Giuliani might’ve finally caught a break.

After being sued for everything he had—his watches, his diamond ring, his Mercedes-Benz, his home, and $148 million—by defamed Georgia poll workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, the former mayor has apparently come to a settlement.

“I have reached a resolution of the litigation with the Plaintiffs that will result in a satisfaction of the Plaintiffs’ judgment. This resolution does not involve an admission of liability or wrongdoing by any of the Parties,” Giuliani announced on X on Thursday. “I am satisfied with and have no grievances relating to the result we have reached. I have been able to retain my New York coop and Florida Condominium and all of my personal belongings. No one deserves to be subjected to threats, harassment, or intimidation. This litigation has taken its toll on all parties. This whole episode was unfortunate. I and the Plaintiffs have agreed not to ever talk about each other in any defamatory manner, and I urge others to do the same.”

Though the terms of the settlement are not yet public, a statement from the defamed mother-daughter duo confirmed the news.

“The past four years have been a living nightmare. We have fought to clear our names, restore our reputations, and prove that we did nothing wrong,” said Moss and Freeman in a joint statement. “We have agreed to allow Mr. Giuliani to retain his property in exchange for compensation and his promise not to ever defame us.”

The settlement comes after Giuliani failed to appear in court Thursday morning. Both parties are now asking the judge to adjourn the trial so that their settlement agreement can be executed.

Moss and Freeman testified that Guiliani’s claims that they’d engaged in election fraud in 2020 led to a wave of racist threats and hatred toward them.

Scott Bessent, Donald Trump’s nominee for treasury secretary, made it clear during his confirmation hearing Thursday that he’s only interested in protecting the interests of the rich and powerful.

The hedge fund manager with a net worth of at least $500 million repeatedly spiked down questions about whether he would support working-class priorities. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders asked Bessent about his position on raising the minimum wage.

“Shamefully, the federal minimum wage, despite the efforts of myself and other people here, [has] not been raised since 2009, and remains an unbelievable $7.25 an hour,” said Sanders. “Will you work with those of us who want to raise the federal minimum wage to a living wage, to take millions of Americans out of poverty?”

“Senator, I believe that the minimum wage is more of a statewide and regional issue,” Bessent responded.

“So you don’t think we should change the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour?” Sanders pressed.

“Uh, no sir,” Bessent replied. Four years ago, Trump said he would consider raising the minimum wage to $15, if it didn’t hurt small businesses. More recently, he’s dodged the question altogether.

Later, Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock asked whether Bessent would be interested in ending tax cuts for the rich to help reduce the national deficit—but the two didn’t quite see eye to eye on the policy.

“Do you agree that ending the tax cuts for those making more than $400,000 would help close the deficit and reduce our national debt?” Warnock asked.

“Senator Warnock, I do not,” Bessent said. “I believe that you would capture an inordinate amount of small-business people who largely are in that cohort of $400,000 to $1 million—”

“So you wouldn’t cut it off at $400,000,” Warnock replied. “What about $1 million?”

“Again, I believe these are small-business pass-through owners. And I believe that we, as I said before, Wall Street’s done great, it is time for Main Street to do well. And small businesses need to drive what I call the reprivatization here away from this government spending.”

Warnock kept pressing him, and Bessent quickly revealed that was hoping to keep tax rates the same as in Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Warnock asked about those making more than $10 million.

Bessent insisted that it was more important “that we put in incentives for them to invest.”

“What about $1 billion?” Warnock asked.

Bessent replied, “Again, I think that these are the job creators.”

“So there’s no income level for which you would support raising taxes?” Warnock said.

Bessent replied that there was “no income level” for which he would support raising taxes.

While Trump has not said that he would raise taxes, his plan to enact sweeping tariffs on imported goods from Mexico, Canada, and China will function as a sort of sales tax, driving up prices on consumer goods.

On Thursday, Bessent also refused to specify where exactly he stood on the future of Medicaid, and claimed that he would leverage negotiations to maintain the critical health care program to “empower” states.

Representative Rick Crawford will be the next House Intelligence Committee chair, following his colleague Mike Turner’s unceremonious removal by Speaker Mike Johnson Wednesday.

Politico reported Thursday that Johnson will name Crawford to the position following Turner’s removal on Donald Trump’s orders. The move was a surprise even to the Republicans on the panel, and some in the GOP are angry at Johnson for how he handled the move.

“He dragged Mike along,” one senior House Republican said, speaking anonymously.

Another Republican warned that Johnson had just “cost himself political capital,” while a third warned that Turner was ready to go scorched earth.

“Mike’s never going to vote for another fucking thing around here again,” the third Republican said. “He’s mad.”

One Democrat, Representative Jim Himes, said Turner’s ouster “sends a shiver down my spine,” adding that Turner wasn’t a Republican who was quick to “bend the knee” to Trump and kept his “eyes on the prize” of oversight.

Trump sought Turner’s removal because he “believes that Turner is basically an intel community sycophant,” one source told The Daily Beast Wednesday. Johnson has said Trump was not involved in the decision.

Turner has warned of Russian propaganda “being uttered” on the House floor, and voted to certify Joe Biden’s win in 2020, putting himself in Trump’s and many conservatives’ crosshairs. Turner’s decision last year to back the reauthorization of Section 702 also has drawn the ire of the right, as well as the ACLU, for its potential to spy on Americans without a warrant.

Meanwhile, Crawford voted against Ukraine aid last year, in contrast to Turner’s staunch support of the country following its invasion by Russia. Turner’s departure will be seen as good news to the MAGA right who oppose any further aid to Ukraine, and Crawford’s appointment gives Trump a firm loyalist at the top of a powerful House committee, getting rid of another possible critic of his national security decisions.