The transformation of Mark Zuckerberg’s stance towards Donald Trump, from banning the former president on Meta’s platforms to seemingly appeasing him through policy shifts, encapsulates a striking evolution in the tech mogul’s approach to politics and power. What began as a firm stance against incitement has evolved into a perceived strategy of conciliation, sparking widespread debate about Zuckerberg’s motivations and Meta’s role in the political sphere.

The Trump Ban: A Bold Start

In the wake of the Capitol riots on January 6, 2021, Zuckerberg took the unprecedented step of banning then-President Trump from Facebook and Instagram, citing concerns about further incitement of violence. This decision marked a pivotal moment in the relationship between Silicon Valley and political leaders, positioning Zuckerberg as a defender of democratic norms—at least in the eyes of some.
However, the ban also attracted significant backlash. Conservatives decried it as an attack on free speech, while progressives questioned why Meta had allowed Trump to operate unchecked for so long. The move cemented Meta’s role as a central player in the fraught discourse over technology’s influence on democracy.

The Shift: Reconciliation and Realignment

Fast forward to 2025, and the narrative has shifted dramatically. Zuckerberg’s actions over the past two years suggest a calculated effort to repair relations with Trump and his political base.

Reconciliation Efforts

Reports of Zuckerberg visiting Trump at Mar-a-Lago fuelled speculation about his motives. These visits, described as attempts to “make peace” with Trump, coincided with the former president’s increasing influence on regulatory policies affecting the tech industry. Critics labelled this as Zuckerberg “bending the knee,” a term denoting submission or appeasement to a more powerful figure.

Policy Changes at Meta

One of the most significant shifts came in January 2025, when Zuckerberg announced the end of Meta’s third-party fact-checking programme in the US, replacing it with a Community Notes-style system. This decision aligned with Trump’s long-standing criticism of fact-checking as biased and restrictive of free speech.
While Zuckerberg justified the change as a response to declining user trust and operational inefficiencies, critics viewed it as a strategic move to align with Trump’s views on free speech and to navigate the political landscape under his renewed influence.
Zuckerberg’s public remarks about Trump also signalled a shift. Following an assassination attempt on Trump, Zuckerberg praised the former president’s resilience, calling his response “badass.” This unusual statement from Zuckerberg, given their previously adversarial dynamic, was widely interpreted as an effort to curry favour with Trump and his supporters.

Strategic Calculations or Principle Abandonment?

Zuckerberg’s actions have sparked intense debate about whether they represent a pragmatic corporate strategy or a troubling compromise of principles.
Corporate Strategy
Meta operates in a highly regulated industry, making political goodwill essential for its survival and growth. Trump’s influence over regulatory policies, particularly those affecting Big Tech, cannot be ignored. Aligning with Trump may ensure that Meta avoids punitive legislation or antitrust actions, safeguarding its business interests in a potentially adversarial political environment.
Criticism of Capitulation
On the other hand, critics argue that Zuckerberg’s pivot undermines Meta’s credibility and responsibility as a platform. The decision to end fact-checking has been described as a capitulation to misinformation and a dangerous abdication of corporate responsibility.
Angie Holan, director of the International Fact-Checking Network, remarked, “Meta’s decision has broader implications for the fight against misinformation. It sends a signal that tech companies are willing to sacrifice principles for political expediency.”
Conservative Support
Conversely, some conservative voices have applauded Zuckerberg’s moves, seeing them as a step towards restoring free speech on social media platforms. This constituency has long criticised Big Tech for perceived bias, and Zuckerberg’s policy changes have been viewed as a validation of their concerns.

The Broader Implications

Zuckerberg’s pivot reflects a deeper cultural and political shift in the US. The growing polarisation of public discourse, coupled with declining trust in institutions, has created a landscape where tech companies must navigate complex and often contradictory pressures.
For Zuckerberg, the transition from banning Trump to accommodating him encapsulates the challenges of leading a global platform in an era of heightened political scrutiny. The man who once positioned himself as a defender of democratic principles now faces accusations of pandering to power, leaving his legacy open to intense debate.
Whether these moves are seen as strategic pragmatism or a troubling compromise of values, they underscore the evolving dynamics between Big Tech and political power in the modern era. The tale of Zuckerberg “bending the knee” to Trump will likely remain a focal point in discussions about the role of technology in shaping the political and cultural landscape of the US.