Will Donald Trump Punish Mark Zuckerberg or Bail Him Out?

Meta, the $1.3-trillion colossus that Zuckerberg built through monopolistic acquisitions, brazen censorship, abusive practices, and ruthless suppression of competition, now faces a landmark antitrust trial. A trial that could, and perhaps should, finally force Meta to spin off Instagram and WhatsApp – undoing years of anti-competitive behavior that harmed users and crushed smaller rivals before they even had a chance to compete.

Let me be very clear: this is not about punishing success. It’s about restoring healthy competition. It’s about protecting free expression and breaking up a corporate empire that has grown too powerful, too arrogant, and, most of all, too unaccountable.

Regarding Big Tech’s influence, Trump’s instincts have been, on the whole, spot on. He accurately criticized Silicon Valley for censorship, stifling conservative voices, and colluding with entrenched political elites. So why would he consider cutting a deal with Zuckerberg?

Mark Zuckerberg is not a friend of free markets, free speech, or fairness. He is the head of a company that, long ago, handed the keys of American discourse to unelected “trust and safety” czars. Meta spent years weaponizing its platforms against average Americans, deciding what they could see, what they could say, and which views were permitted to survive.

In a 2022 interview with Joe Rogan, Zuckerberg openly admitted that Facebook suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story after a warning from the FBI. One could almost forgive him for buckling to federal pressure. If it had been an isolated incident, that is. But it wasn’t. That same year, The Intercept published leaked documents revealing that the Biden administration maintained a direct “backchannel” into Facebook’s internal systems, flagging posts critical of their COVID-19 policies for suppression. This was not private moderation; it was government censorship outsourced to Silicon Valley. It was, in every way imaginable, a brazen violation of free speech principles. Even TIME Magazine, not exactly a bastion of Trumpism, revealed that Zuckerberg was central to a coordinated “Shadow Campaign” during the 2020 election, working alongside tech leaders, unions, and progressive activists to “steer” media narratives toward a preferred political outcome. It wasn’t rigging in the traditional sense. It was, I suggest, something more insidious: a quiet manipulation of perception at a national scale, with Zuckerberg’s platforms doing much of the heavy lifting.

No amount of 2024 election-cycle pandering should erase these undeniable facts. Americans should neither forgive nor forget the manner in which Meta, under Zuckerberg’s stewardship, acted.

One shouldn’t be fooled by his new hairstyle, flashy chain, and alleged consumption of the Red Pill. Meta helped to cement a two-tier system where only “approved” opinions could thrive. It did this by relentlessly suppressing critical news stories. Zuckerberg claims that the Biden administration pressured him into censorship. That may be true. However, he has a tongue; he could have refused. He didn’t. He complied. He carried out the orders without hesitation.

Under Zuckerberg’s leadership, Meta has enabled everything from rampant teen anxiety and depression to election manipulation. With Instagram, as I reported a few years ago, Meta allowed child predators to operate with shocking levels of impunity. In 2023, a Wall Street Journal investigation revealed that Instagram’s algorithms actively steered users, including minors, toward sexualized content involving children. According to the report, Instagram’s recommendation engine created networks that enabled and amplified child exploitation. Adding to the alarming picture, a former senior Meta executive, Sarah Wynn-Williams, recently came forward as a whistleblower. She accuses Meta of prioritizing profits over national security, claiming the company is “hand in glove” with Chinese interests to expand its business in China. In other words, while Zuckerberg postures as a defender of free speech and American values, his company has reportedly been cozying up to America’s chief geopolitical adversary behind closed doors.

Meta has poisoned civic discourse and quietly strip-mined personal data on a massive scale, all while raking in unimaginable amounts of money. Meta has weakened society, yet it continues to grow stronger. Last year, compared to 2023, Meta raked in an additional $30 billion. Now, with the guillotine hanging above him, Zuckerberg seeks to rebrand himself as a born-again champion of free speech. This is not a transformation. It is an act, and a desperate one at that.

Trump has built his legacy on fighting corruption and taking on powerful entrenched interests. Bailing out Zuckerberg would betray that legacy. Meta doesn’t need more leniency from government officials. It needs to be dismantled – brick by brick, algorithm by algorithm – for the unquantifiable damage it has inflicted on the American people.

Letting Meta off the hook would send a very clear message. It would, in no uncertain terms, tell every tech giant that censorship pays off, that monopolizing the digital public square comes with no real consequences, and that as long as you hire enough lobbyists and whisper the right promises in the right ears, you can buy immunity from the very government you spent years trying to undermine.

It would also tell voters that when push comes to shove, power protects power, that the fight against corporate overreach was little more than political theater, and that the forgotten men and women Trump promised to protect are expendable when Silicon Valley heavyweights knock on the door.

Trump spent years promising to fight for the ordinary American and to tear down the elite power-structures strangling free speech, free markets, and national sovereignty. Meta is the very embodiment of that elite power-structure. It is a bloated, brutal cartel that leveraged its dominance to crush smaller players, silence dissent, and rewrite the rules of public discourse.