The Trial Mark Zuckerberg Couldn’t Prevent

Summary

Summary of "The Trial Mark Zuckerberg Couldn’t Prevent" – The Daily by The New York Times

Episode Title: The Trial Mark Zuckerberg Couldn’t Prevent
Release Date: April 17, 2025
Host: Rachel Abrams
Guest: Cecilia Kang, New York Times Correspondent
Duration: Approximately 25 minutes

---

Introduction

In this episode of The Daily, Rachel Abrams delves into one of the most significant legal battles against a Big Tech company: the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) attempt to dismantle Meta Platforms Inc. (formerly Facebook). Over an eight-week trial, the FTC argues that Meta's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp were anticompetitive maneuvers that allowed the company to maintain a monopoly, thereby harming consumers. Cecilia Kang provides an in-depth analysis of the contentious relationship between Meta's CEO Mark Zuckerberg and former President Donald Trump, shedding light on how political dynamics have influenced this landmark case.

---

Background: Meta's Rise and Acquisitive Strategy

The trial centers on Meta's strategic acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 for $1 billion and WhatsApp in 2014 for $19 billion. At the time, regulators deemed these mergers non-threatening, approving them based on the limited competition these smaller platforms posed. However, as Meta's user base exploded to 3.5 billion, the sheer scale and influence of the company raised new antitrust concerns.

Cecilia Kang explains:
"Regulators started to see that these acquisitions were not just minor expansions but essential tools for maintaining Meta's dominance. This shift in perception has fundamentally changed how such mergers are viewed, especially in the context of the internet economy where traditional metrics like pricing power don’t directly apply."
(16:08)

---

The Zuckerberg-Trump Relationship: A Complex Dynamic

Cecilia Kang outlines the evolution of the relationship between Mark Zuckerberg and Donald Trump, highlighting its impact on the current antitrust trial.

Early Interactions

Initially, Zuckerberg maintained a relatively apolitical stance, contributing to both political parties without public endorsements. However, the 2016 U.S. presidential election marked a turning point.

Kang notes:
"Facebook was widely criticized for its role in spreading misinformation, which many believe contributed to Trump's election victory. In response, Zuckerberg implemented policies like fact-checking to curb misinformation, actions that were lauded by liberals but condemned by conservatives as censorship."
(04:49)

Strained Relations Amid Political Turmoil

The relationship soured significantly following the events of January 6, 2021, when Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol. Meta's decision to remove Trump's videos from the platform, citing policies against incitement of violence, was perceived by Trump as an act of hostility.

Kang explains:
"This decision was the first major public clash between Zuckerberg and Trump, transforming Facebook from a perceived neutral platform to a political battleground."
(06:19)

Attempts at Reconciliation and Further Drift

Post the 2024 election, Zuckerberg made overtures to align more closely with Trump's agenda by eliminating fact-checkers and diversity initiatives within Meta, moves seen as catering to Trump's 'Make America Great Again' (MAGA) stance. Despite these efforts, the animosity persisted.

Kang remarks:
"Despite Zuckerberg's attempts to appear supportive, the President still views Meta as a formidable adversary, maintaining a desire for the FTC to pursue the breakup of the company."
(13:05)

---

The Antitrust Case: FTC vs. Meta

Government's Argument

The FTC's lawsuit contends that Meta's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp were strategic moves to eliminate potential competition, thereby securing a monopoly in the social media landscape. This case challenges the original approvals granted over a decade ago, introducing a novel argument that antitrust laws should address not just price-related issues but also the power to censor speech.

Kang elaborates:
"The government's novel argument includes the idea that Meta's control over major communication platforms enables it to influence public discourse, which is a form of consumer harm beyond traditional price considerations."
(19:12)

Meta's Defense and Strategic Positioning

Meta, with Zuckerberg at the helm, approaches the trial with confidence. Legal experts suggest that the FTC faces an uphill battle due to the original approvals of the mergers and the untested nature of the new speech-based antitrust arguments.

Kang states:
"Meta is not only defending its past mergers but also positioning itself against evolving regulatory standards that now consider the company's role in information dissemination as a potential antitrust issue."
(21:46)

---

The Role of Political Influence

Zuckerberg's interactions with Trump, including private meetings and public endorsements, appear to be strategic attempts to garner political support against the FTC's actions. However, these efforts have not swayed the President's stance, with Trump continuing to view Meta as a target.

Cecilia Kang comments:
"Even with Zuckerberg's efforts to align with Trump's policies, the fundamental perception of Meta as a monopolistic entity remains unaltered, necessitating the ongoing legal battle."
(13:05)

---

Implications and Future Outlook

The trial's outcome could set a precedent for how Big Tech companies are regulated, particularly concerning their influence over public discourse and competition. A victory for the FTC might lead to a restructuring of Meta, while a win for Meta could strengthen the dominance of Big Tech firms.

Kang concludes:
"Regardless of the trial's outcome, its implications will ripple through Silicon Valley and beyond, influencing future regulatory approaches and the strategic operations of major tech companies."
(22:47)

---

Notable Quotes

• Cecilia Kang:
  "The government is arguing that antitrust enforcement should include concerns about speech."
  (20:16)

• Cecilia Kang:
  "Meta is viewed as too big, regardless of mutual agreements on certain issues like free speech."
  (20:39)

• Cecilia Kang:
  "Legal experts are saying that this is a tough case for the FTC."
  (21:46)

• Cecilia Kang:
  "There will be many [fights]."
  (22:44)

---

Conclusion

"The Trial Mark Zuckerberg Couldn’t Prevent" provides a comprehensive exploration of the intricate interplay between Big Tech and political power. As the trial progresses, the relationship between Meta, its founder, and the political landscape remains a pivotal factor in determining the future of one of the world's most influential companies.

---

This summary has been crafted to provide a detailed overview of the podcast episode, capturing essential discussions, insights, and conclusions without including unrelated advertisements or introductory segments.

Transcript

[Capital One Ad]

Brought to you by the Capital One Savor Card. With Savor, you earn unlimited 3% cash back on dining, entertainment and at grocery stores. That's unlimited cash back on ordering takeout from home or unlimited cash back on tickets to concerts and games. So grab a bite, grab a seat, and earn unlimited 3% cash back with the saver card Capital One what's in your wallet? Terms apply. See capitalone.com for details.

[Rachel Abrams]

From the New York Times, I'm Rachel Abrams. This is the Daily testimonies began this week in one of the most aggressive cases the government has ever brought against a big tech company. And over the next eight weeks, the Federal Trade Commission will argue that Meta, the company founded by Mark Zuckerberg in his college dorm room, should be broken up. Today, my colleague Cecilia Kang on the strange and contentious relationship between Zuckerberg and President Trump that has led to this moment and what the case means for both of them. It's Thursday, April 17th. Cecilia, you are talking to me from your car, I believe. Why? Why are you talking to me from your car?

[Cecilia Kang]

Yeah, I had to run to my car because I'm on a lunch break during an antitrust trial where the Federal Trade Commission is seeking to break up Meta. And this is a really high stakes case for Meta and for Mark Zuckerberg because this case really threatens the company's entire existence. It's existential because the government is trying to break up this company that he co founded two decades ago. And I have just spent the first half of this week watching Zuckerberg testify as the first and star witness in the government's case against Meta. And when I go back, he will finish up and then we will have the former Chief Operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg testify.

[Rachel Abrams]

What's the first week been like?

[Cecilia Kang]

It's been pretty crazy. Long lines to get into the courtroom. The courtroom itself is full of Meta's many lawyers, as well as the FTC's lawyers and media and a lot of just people from the public. And it's interesting because up until really the minutes before the trial began, I wasn't even sure that it was going to happen.

[Rachel Abrams]

Why is that?

[Cecilia Kang]

In recent weeks, senior Facebook officials have been trying to get the White House to stop this case from going to trial. And recently, as we reported, Mark Zuckerberg was at the White House himself, meeting with the President and his top aides, trying to get the president to drop this case before it could go to trial. And so this case, which has huge implications, can be seen as a reflection of this ongoing and strange relationship between these two men, Zuckerberg and President Trump.

[Rachel Abrams]

It's sort of surprising to hear what you're saying because we've talked on the show about how the big tech giants have been increasingly cozying up to President Trump. I think a lot of people, myself included, saw photos of Zuckerberg at the inauguration. I sort of had the impression that these two men were at least a little bit warm toward each other. So maybe you could just unpack this a little bit. What exactly is their relationship and how has it affected this case?

[Cecilia Kang]

So it's interesting. The story of Zuckerberg and Trump really goes back almost a decade, and their relationship has really changed and evolved over those years. I think it's fair to say that what started as a story of two very powerful but very different and maybe even opposing figures has turned into something quite different lately. Zuckerberg has been very positive about Trump. He's really tried to get into Trump's inner circle. But Trump, at this point has not returned the same sort of interest nor affection. I would say that the relationship is pretty one sided at this point.

[Rachel Abrams]

Mm.

[Cecilia Kang]

Zuckerberg, for most of Facebook's history, has never been overtly political. It's actually sort of a mystery as to how he votes. He donates to both parties. He's not particularly vocal about politics generally. Things get a little bit more complicated when it comes to Trump's first election victory in 2016. That was a huge deal for Facebook, but not necessarily in a positive way.

[Rachel Abrams]

I remember that Facebook was really widely seen as one of the reasons that Trump won the election.

[Cecilia Kang]

That's right. The left blamed Facebook for Trump's victory. They say that there was a surge of political misinformation that really helped Trump in winning. And Zuckerberg reacts to these concerns by creating new policies and new changes to the platform, instituting things like fact checking, all with the purpose of trying to slow the spread of misinformation on the site. And the right hates this. They say that these actions are essentially censorship and censorship of conservatives. They say that the company's leaders and their employees are liberal and they have a bias that's against conservatives in Trump. And Trump comes out for the first time as anti Facebook.

[Rachel Abrams]

It sounds like hating Facebook basically becomes like a bipartisan issue at this point.

[Cecilia Kang]

Yes, at this point, we're starting to see Facebook getting caught in between both political parties. And eventually the Federal Trade Commission under the Trump administration, decides to sue in December 2020, which was right before they leave office. That lawsuit leads to the trial that I've been covering this week. And then on January 6th, we know what happens. Trump's supporters stormed the Capitol. And at first he is urging the crowds. And while his supporters are in the Capitol building and police are trying to take control of the situation, Trump addresses his supporters in a video. I know your pain. I know you're hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it. That video is posted across social media, including Facebook and Instagram. People in law and order. We don't want anybody hurt. It's a very tough period of time. There's never been a time like this where and employees of the company as well as the public are very concerned with Trump's speech. What Facebook decides to do next is very important. They decide to remove those videos and they cite a policy that the company has on speech. The company forbids any sort of incitement of violence. And then Facebook escalates. Facebook decides to remove Trump entirely off the platform. Trump interprets that as a shot across the bow. And at that point, he determines that Facebook is an enemy. But when President Biden comes into office, all of a sudden, it is Zuckerberg feeling like Facebook is being censored.

[Rachel Abrams]

How so?

[Cecilia Kang]

The real flashpoint was during the COVID 19 pandemic and when the Biden White House was reaching out to Facebook senior executives and really railing on them to clamp down on misinformation related to the virus. The Biden administration, according to Zuckerberg and employees at Met, was quite strict about what kind of information that they thought was misinformation, any sort of skepticism about the vaccine, as well as any sort of conversation even around Covid, where there might have been either just questions raised or maybe even satirical content about COVID 19 was the subject of real scrutiny by the Biden administration. And White House officials were telling Meta that they need to take down all that content, which Meta thought was a real overreach. And in fact, the relationship between Meta and the Biden administration only gets worse once Biden appoints a real trust buster, Lina Khan, to be his top antitrust regulator. Lina is a well known figure within the very small and esoteric world of antitrust law, and she is seen as one of the biggest threats across corporate America. And Lina Khan picks up that antitrust suit against Meta that was initiated in the Trump administration.

[Rachel Abrams]

So it sounds like at this point, basically, Zuckerberg and the Biden administration could not be farther apart.

[Cecilia Kang]

Yes, the animosity between the Biden administration and Meta only grows, and the Company's feeling very much like a target.

[Rachel Abrams]

So as Zuckerberg's relationship with Biden is deteriorating, what's going on with his relationship to Trump at this point in time?

[Cecilia Kang]

Well, the real inflection point was the assassination attempt on Trump. And that was a moment when Mark Zuckerberg saw Trump emerge and stand up from that stage in Pennsylvania with his fist pumped in the air, blood coming.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Down his face, you know, and seeing Donald Trump get. Get up after getting shot in the face.

[Cecilia Kang]

Zuckerberg later commented that he thought that was such a moment of heroism.

[Unnamed Contributor]

One of the most badass things I've ever seen in my life. But.

[Cecilia Kang]

And that he thought that, in his words, that Trump was a real badass at some level.

[Unnamed Contributor]

As an American, it's, like, hard to not get kind of emotional about that spirit and that fight. And I think that that's why a lot of people like the guy.

[Cecilia Kang]

And that was the first time that I had heard Zuckerberg really speak out so positively about a political candidate. He had been very careful for many years to not take any strong position in politics. And then after the 2024 election, things really start to pick up. We see Zuckerberg almost racing to show his affection for Trump.

[Rachel Abrams]

Mm.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg had a private.

[Cecilia Kang]

Meeting with the president elect today at Mar a Lago. First, he publicly congratulates the president on his election. Well, Mark Zuckerberg's been over to see me, and he visits the president elect in Mar A Lago.

[Unnamed Contributor]

What's going on? You know, chill week.

[Dane Brugler]

Yeah, sorta.

[Cecilia Kang]

He goes on the Joe Rogan podcast.

[Unnamed Contributor]

And it's one of the things that I'm optimistic about with President Trump is I think he just wants America to win. And.

[Cecilia Kang]

And for quite some time talks about how much he admired the president.

[Unnamed Contributor]

These people from the Biden administration would call up our team and, like, scream at them and curse, and it's like these.

[Cecilia Kang]

And how he had become so frustrated with the Democratic led former White House.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Hey, everyone, I want to talk about something important.

[Cecilia Kang]

Today we see Zuckerberg also change policies within the company.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Here's what we're gonna do. First, we're gonna get rid of fact checkers and replace them with community notes similar to X starting in the US.

[Cecilia Kang]

He gets rid of fact checking.

[Unnamed Contributor]

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.

[Cecilia Kang]

And he also gets rid of dei, diversity, equity, inclusion, sort of efforts at the company.

[Unnamed Contributor]

The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech.

[Cecilia Kang]

These two big policy changes seem very much aligned with the Trump agenda. And for a prime example of how Trump went from pariah to powerful, look to Meta. The company confirms it made a million.

[Rachel Abrams]

Dollar contribution to Trump's inaugural fund.

[Cecilia Kang]

Meta donates a million dollars to the Trump inauguration.

[Rachel Abrams]

He's really pulling out all the stops.

[Cecilia Kang]

He's pulling out all the stops. It's happening in rapid fire, all within a compressed few weeks.

[Rachel Abrams]

And you know, whether or not he believes in President Trump or whether he's just trying to do the best thing for his companies, I guess that doesn't really matter because he's gone full maga, right? Like he's fully aligning himself with the new administration. But I have to note that looking at where we are today, it doesn't seem like any of that helped him that much.

[Cecilia Kang]

Yeah, Rachel, I don't think so. The President still holds a grudge against Zuckerberg and Mehta. And as somebody very close to the President told me just a few days ago, the president still wants his pound of flesh.

[Rachel Abrams]

We'll be right back.

[Unnamed Advertiser]

There's nothing normal about paying a fortune for wireless. Mint Mobile has plans that start at just 15 bucks a month. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text. Get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. Go to mintmobile.com thedaily that's mintmobile.com thedaily Upfront payment of $45 for three month 5GB plan required equivalent to $15 per month. New customer offer for first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details. This podcast is supported by Andor Season 2. Critics everywhere hailed the first season of Andor as the best Star wars series yet. The Wrap called it thrilling and exciting and the Verge said it's truly phenomenal storytelling. The Emmy nominated series stars Diego Luna as Cassian and watch as he embarks on a path from rebel to hero. Andor Season 2 is streaming April 22nd only on Disney.

[Rachel Abrams]

So Cecilia, we just talked about how Zuckerberg couldn't get Trump to make this case go away. But what exactly is the case that the government is bringing here?

[Cecilia Kang]

Yeah, this case is really pretty novel in that this all centers around two acquisitions more than a decade ago, the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. And what the federal government is arguing is that Facebook had a monopoly when they bought these companies and through these acquisitions they were able to keep Their monopoly. The reason why that is such a eyebrow raising argument in particular is because the very agency that is suing Meta was the agency that approved those mergers more than a decade ago in the first place.

[Rachel Abrams]

Okay, explain that.

[Cecilia Kang]

So I've got to take you back in a time machine to around 2011, 2012, and this was a really pivotal time for Facebook. Facebook really struggled to create an app for the smartphone. And they were starting to see competition, particularly from Instagram. That made Mark Zuckerberg very nervous because Instagram had this new and very interesting photo sharing app. And so Zuckerberg in 2012 decided to buy Instagram, which didn't have that many users and had very few employees, for a billion dollars.

[Rachel Abrams]

Wow.

[Cecilia Kang]

That in itself was a big deal at that time. But regulators thought that it was such a small company, Instagram, and it didn't directly compete with Facebook as a social network, that they felt comfortable allowing that merger to go through. And then Zuckerberg got nervous again. Around 2014, he saw the rise of messaging apps like WeChat in China and WhatsApp, which was an app that was very popular globally, really picking up steam and getting tons of users around the world. And he was afraid that those kinds of messaging apps could also compete with Facebook because they could take on more social features like sharing between friends and family. So then in 2014, he buys WhatsApp for $19 billion.

[Rachel Abrams]

Wow.

[Cecilia Kang]

Huge price tag. That drew a ton of interest at the time. But again, regulators said, you know, this app doesn't directly compete with Facebook, so, yes, we'll approve it. So both mergers approved by the Federal Trade Commission.

[Rachel Abrams]

So it sounds like, from what you're saying, that there weren't any alarm bells ringing at the time when Facebook was acquiring these. Obviously, something changed. What changed and why?

[Cecilia Kang]

Well, a couple things changed. First, Facebook becomes very powerful. It hits 3.5 billion users. And that sheer scale puts a spotlight on Facebook. Suddenly, people see that it has become an essential place for so many people around the world to obtain and to share information. And once people start recognizing that, especially around the 2016 and 2020 elections, it changes the perception of Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg. The other thing that changes is that regulators start looking at the Silicon Valley companies very differently. They see that these Internet giants only get bigger and stronger in ways that are unexpected. They start to look at acquisitions that these companies have made over the years that may have not seemed either threatening or anticompetitive at the time, because these big companies are often buying very small startups. But those acquisitions become really important tools for these companies to continue to grow and to maintain their monopolies. It used to be that the key way to determine if a monopoly was breaking the law was whether prices were going up for consumers. But how does that apply to an Internet company, especially a company that has apps like Facebook and Instagram, which are free? And so regulators are saying there are different ways that we should look at how these companies have too much power.

[Rachel Abrams]

So what is the harm that the government is arguing that Meta poses here exactly. If not ripping people off in terms of how much they're paying for a product?

[Cecilia Kang]

So the government is arguing that there are other ways consumers have been harmed. They say that if these mergers were not approved, that maybe Instagram and WhatsApp would have created much more competition that would spur Facebook to be more innovative and to make their app better. So you might see fewer things like data privacy scandals. You might see the company do a better job when it comes to containing misinformation. All these things that are not related to price but do affect the consumer experience. And most interestingly, the Trump administration has introduced a new wrinkle. President Trump and his top antitrust regulators have argued that these platforms censor speech and that their ability to censor speech is a real sign, a symptom of a problem, which is that they are too powerful. So they are arguing, for the first time that I have heard a speech theory, that antitrust enforcement should include concerns about speech.

[Rachel Abrams]

Cecilia, I can't help but notice that Zuckerberg, who has become this, like, free speech absolutist and rolled back so much of the company's past efforts to censor content on the platform. He's actually now the target of a case the president or his administration is taking on, at least in part because he thinks Meta holds too much power to shape speech.

[Cecilia Kang]

So it's really ironic in some ways. Zuckerberg and Trump want the same thing. They want complete free speech on the Internet. They want no censorship. And Zuckerberg has tried to signal to Trump that, hey, we are on the same side on this issue. But even though Zuckerberg has tried to do that and made so many other efforts to try to appease Trump, it really hasn't landed in the way that Zuckerberg wants and needs. He still has to go through this trial. And that's because even though they might agree on some things, Facebook is still viewed as simply just too big.

[Rachel Abrams]

But it sort of sounds like, from what you've explained, that the government has a bit of an uphill battle Here for two reasons. One, they basically have to say, like, look, even though we approved these mergers back in the day, we've changed our mind. We want to unwind them, which seems tough. And two, they've also got this new argument where they're trying to prove new harms in a theory that's kind of been untested before. Right. So should I take it from what you've just said that Meta is feeling pretty good about its chances here?

[Cecilia Kang]

I think so. I think Meta is coming in really confidently. I think legal experts are all saying that this is a tough case for the ftc. But the real question that I have as I watch Mark Zuckerberg finish his testimony this week is what is he winning here? They might win this trial, but he still needs to win over the President. There are so many other issues that relate to his business, and there's so much at stake with this administration as the company continues to try to expand in new areas and grow. So I would say this is just one step in a very long process for Meta to really get back into the good graces of Washington and particularly to, for the first time, win over Trump's support.

[Rachel Abrams]

Because who knows what the next fight will be.

[Cecilia Kang]

That's right. And there will be many.

[Rachel Abrams]

Cecilia, thank you so much.

[Cecilia Kang]

Thank you for having me, Rachel.

[Rachel Abrams]

We'll be right back.

[Dane Brugler]

I'm Dane Brugler. I cover the NFL draft for the Athletic, spending the whole year working on a draft guide. I'm looking at thousands of players putting together hundreds of full scouting reports. All the nitty gritty details, the testing data, the stats, but extensive background research as well. Every journey is a little bit different. I'm on the phone with a lot of these guys. Hey, when did you start playing football? What other sports did you play? Tell me about your family. You know, learning more about these guys as people. Our draft guide picked up the name the Beast because of the crazy amount of information that's included. I have no idea how to quantify the hours I've spent putting it together. I've been covering this year's draft since last year's draft. There is a lot in the Beast that you simply can't find anywhere else. This is the kind of in depth, unique journalism you get from the Athletic and the New York Times. You can [e-mail] subscribe.

[Rachel Abrams]

Here'S what else you need to know. Today, a federal judge threatened to open a contempt investigation into whether the Trump administration violated an order the judge issued directing officials to stop planes of Venezuelan migrants from being sent to El Salvador. The judge said he would begin the proceedings against the administration unless the White House gives scores of Venezuelan men deported to El Salvador a chance to challenge their removal. And on Wednesday, Britain's Supreme Court ruled that trans women do not fall within the legal definition of women under the country equality legislation, dealing a major blow to campaigners for transgender rights. While the five judges involved in the ruling said the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex, they emphasized that they were not commenting on whether trans women are women more broadly, saying it was not the role of the court to adjudicate the meaning of gender or sex. Today's episode was produced by Nina Feldman and Carlos Brieto. It was edited by Brendan Klinkenberg and Mark George with help from Mike Benoit, contains original Music by Pat McCusker, Diane Wong, Marian Lozano and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsberg of Wonderly. That's it for the Daily I'm Rachel Abrams. See you tomorrow.

[Capital One Ad]

You want control of your financial future. That's why when it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices like full service, wealth management and advice when you need it most. You can also invest on your own and trade on Think or Swim, the powerful award winning trading platform. Plus, you'll get low costs, transparent pricing and 247 live help because Schwab understands it's your financial journey and they believe you should have choices in how you invest. Visit schwab.com to learn more.