Behind the Curtain: Meta’s Monopoly Battle, Political Ties, and the Trump Factor

The U.S. government is moving forward with a significant antitrust case against Meta, accusing the tech giant—helmed by Mark Zuckerberg—of establishing an illegal monopoly in the social networking space through years of anticompetitive strategies. Should the court rule in favor of the government, Meta may be compelled to divest major acquisitions such as Instagram and WhatsApp. The case carries broader implications for the tech industry at large, potentially putting other powerful tech companies on alert. However, a major wildcard in the proceedings remains whether or not former President Donald Trump will attempt to intervene in the process.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which is spearheading the case, has traditionally operated with autonomy from political influence. Yet, under Trump’s second term, that boundary has been tested, raising concerns about favoritism and political interference. In the midst of this, Zuckerberg has made clear efforts to establish a rapport with Trump, engaging in private dinners, public events, and altering Meta’s platform policies. In a January address to Meta staff, Zuckerberg spoke optimistically about building a "productive partnership" with the U.S. government—comments that coincided with reports of his efforts to persuade Trump to help resolve the FTC dispute.

Critics like former Labor Secretary Robert Reich have drawn attention to Zuckerberg’s earlier support of Trump, including a $1 million donation to his inauguration, suggesting that Zuckerberg is now seeking to benefit from those ties. While the initial case against Meta was initiated during Trump’s first term with bipartisan support from state attorneys general, it was dismissed and later refiled under President Biden’s administration with a more robust complaint. The case is now being overseen by Judge James Boasberg, who has previously ruled against Trump in unrelated cases, making him a potential target of political backlash.

In an environment where political alliances are increasingly influencing federal agencies, Trump’s recent firing of two Democratic FTC commissioners—an unprecedented move contrary to a 1935 Supreme Court ruling—has only added to the tension. Both commissioners, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, have filed lawsuits to contest their dismissal, citing concerns that Trump is directing law enforcement to target political opponents and shield allies. Slaughter publicly emphasized the importance of impartial law enforcement, suggesting that political interference could erode trust in the judicial process.

Amid this, Trump’s opinion of Zuckerberg remains ambiguous. While Trump has accused Zuckerberg of conspiring against him during the 2020 election and issued harsh warnings, he has also acknowledged a recent dinner meeting with Zuckerberg after the 2024 election and spoken of it in friendly terms. Zuckerberg, meanwhile, seems to be courting Trump’s base by implementing changes on Facebook that align with Trump’s criticism of "censorship" and by maintaining a visible presence alongside other tech leaders at pro-Trump events.

As the trial approaches, Meta is strategically highlighting its competition with global platforms like TikTok and YouTube, attempting to reframe the narrative around innovation and national interest. The company argues that breaking it up would weaken the U.S. in critical technological arenas, such as AI, especially in contrast to China. While Trump-appointed FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson has expressed enthusiasm about prosecuting the case, he also acknowledged that he would comply with lawful presidential directives, leaving open the possibility—however remote—that politics could still sway the outcome.