Zuckerberg’s new Washington game

On the surface, the apologetic letter Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg sent to congressional Republicans on Monday looks like a capitulation in the long-simmering political wars over social media.

But tech observers on both sides of the aisle say that in the wake of this summer’s Supreme Court decisions on speech and social platforms, it also represents a shrewd political calculation — a surprise move by a CEO who wants to spend the next four years out of the political winds.

In the letter, Zuckerberg openly admitted that the Biden administration pressured Meta to “censor” certain content, particularly posts related to Covid-19. He expressed frustration that the company ultimately complied with those requests, and said it’s “ready to push back” next time.

Some conservatives rallied around the letter as welcome evidence that President Joe Biden had overstepped — a reaction that, unlike in the past, seemed to absolve Meta and Zuckerberg of their role in the process. In posts on X, Reps. Bob Latta (R-Ohio) and Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa) attacked the Biden administration for what they both called an “abuse of power” — but neither lawmaker took particularly pointed shots at the company or its CEO.

Adam Candeub, a former Trump official who led the administration’s crusade against big tech’s alleged anti-conservative bias in 2020, suggested GOP lawmakers who believe Zuckerberg has had a change of heart risk being snookered.

“You have the head of one of the major social media companies who shamelessly admits that he colludes with government to limit the free speech rights of American citizens,” Candeub said. “And not only that — he admits to it, but then he gets ‘nice guy’ points by promising that he won't do it [again].”

Nu Wexler, a former Democratic congressional staffer and ex-spokesperson for several top tech firms in Washington, including Meta, sees Zuckerberg’s letter as an attempt to tamp down longstanding Republican ire over Meta’s perceived anti-conservative bias ahead of November — which could see Trump return to office and exact revenge on tech platforms that purportedly wronged him.

“Like most other large companies before a toss-up election, Meta is probably hedging its bets here,” he said.

Though the looming election might seem like a good reason to hedge those bets, Wexler and others see another reason for Zuckerberg’s timing.

Earlier this summer, Meta’s takedown of covid-related posts — the very behavior that caused Zuckerberg to express regret — was also being litigated in front of the Supreme Court, giving Meta a disincentive to tilt the scales with any public statements.

“I can definitely see not wanting to rock the boat” while that case was pending, said Daphne Keller, director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center.

In June’s Murthy v. Missouri decision, the court threw out the covid censorship claims on standing, allowing the Biden administration to keep asking Meta and other platforms to take down content — and for the platforms to reject those requests. And in July, the Supreme Court blocked laws in Texas and Florida that would have stopped platforms from removing content and blocking political candidates based on their viewpoints.

With Meta having largely won those court battles, Wexler said the company is “protected legally” from blowback over its prior moderation practices — and is therefore “able to make statements” like the one Zuckerberg sent to House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on Monday.

Candeub framed Zuckerberg’s letter, at this point in the argument, as a cynical attempt to repair Meta’s frayed relationship with Republicans.

“It just shows that he fears no legal repercussion,” Candeub said. “This is the world the Supreme Court has created for us.”

Meta spokesperson Andy Stone told POLITICO that the company doesn’t have any additional statement “beyond the letter itself.” He declined to comment when asked why Zuckerberg chose to disavow his company’s prior moderation practices years after the fact, or whether politics played a role in the letter.

It’s not yet clear if Monday’s letter will cause Republicans to back off their longstanding beef with the tech giant, which helped launch a high-profile congressional investigation into social media bias spearheaded by Jordan’s committee. Donald Trump’s presidential campaign was already fundraising off of the letter on Tuesday, claiming in an email blast to supporters that “interference like this is worth billions.”

A House Judiciary spokesperson called Zuckerberg’s letter “a major revelation that validates the Committee’s investigation over the past year and a half,” and said it “underscores the need to pass legislation that would prevent the federal government from working with social media companies to violate Americans’ First Amendment rights.”

But many Republican-allied voices saw it in a more positive light. Elon Musk, whose purchase of Twitter led to the dismantling of the strict moderating practices once prevalent on that platform, called Zuckerberg’s mea culpa “a step in the right direction.”

And even before this week’s letter, there were signs that the GOP grassroots had moved on from the bias battles that once dominated the party’s relationship with tech platforms. In a conversation with POLITICO at last month’s Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Jordan admitted the issue had lost some resonance among the Republican rank-and-file.

“Part of the reason is, we're having success,” Jordan said. He pointed to last year’s dismantling of the Disinformation Governance Board at the Department of Homeland Security as well as Musk’s Twitter takeover, which prompted a surge of right-wing content on the platform now known as X.

“We think things are changing, which is a good thing,” Jordan said last month.

In response to Zuckerberg’s letter, a White House spokesperson wrote in an email that “when confronted with a deadly pandemic, this Administration encouraged responsible actions to protect public health and safety.” The spokesperson said tech companies and private actors “should take into account the effects their actions have on the American people, while making independent choices about the information they present.”

Wexler said Zuckerberg’s letter is unlikely to face much blowback from Democrats, even if Vice President Kamala Harris wins in November.

“The very public pressure by the White House on covid-related content — while it was legal, I think it was embarrassing,” Wexler said. “I think that future administrations, particularly Democratic administrations, won't be as aggressive.”

With Meta having dodged most of the legal trouble around its moderation practices, Wexler said Zuckerberg can now repair his relationship with Republicans in an attempt to ward off other kinds of regulation by the Trump administration — particularly antitrust efforts that could threaten their business at the highest level.

“The companies are much more concerned about the antitrust cases,” Wexler said. “Whatever they can do on the political side that might soften some of these antitrust prosecutions, particularly in another Trump administration, is probably the top priority for them.”

Candeub warned Republican lawmakers against taking Zuckerberg at his word. He urged the GOP to press on with antitrust efforts targeting Meta and other tech giants, and to advance state and federal laws that stop platforms from removing political speech.

“I want a legal and constitutional structure that protects a flourishing free-speech environment online,” Candeub said. “The whims of billionaires doesn't cut it.”

Adam Cancryn contributed to this report.