Reading view

Rachel Maddow slams presence of tech CEOs at Trump’s inauguration: ‘How is this happening in America?’

Rachel Maddow could not contain her dismay at the presence of wealthy entrepreneurs seated prominently at President Trump’s inauguration, asking, "how is this happening in America?"

Trump’s inauguration was attended by disparate guests, ranging from Argentinean President Javier Milei to musician Carrie Underwood, but it was the image of Apple CEO Tim Cook hobnobbing with Trump Homeland Security nominee Kristi Noem that sent the MSNBC host into a frenzy.

"Kristi Noem, the nominee for homeland security, next to Apple CEO Tim Cook. How is this happening in America?" Maddow lamented. 

MADDOW ON WHAT SHE GOT WRONG IN 2024: I THOUGHT JD VANCE WOULD FRIGHTEN MORE PEOPLE

"How is this happening? Why are people with tons of money up on the dais with Cabinet nominees and family members?"

Trump’s relationship with Silicon Valley has undergone a total 180 in recent weeks, with once antagonistic tech titans now jockeying to get into the president’s good graces. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, also seated prominently at the inauguration, announced in January he is ending DEI policies on his various social media platforms, including Facebook and Instagram. Meta and Amazon each donated over $1 million to Trump’s inauguration.

In addition to Zuckerberg and Cook, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who will be chairing Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, were all given prime real estate at the inauguration.

META FACT-CHECKERS SET TO LOSE REVENUE, MAY SHUT DOWN AFTER ZUCKERBERG’S PIVOT: ‘WE DON’T HAVE MUCH TIME LEFT’

MSNBC host Alex Wagner warned that the presence of so many businessmen at the inauguration was meant to send "a message."

"It is a message. And I think it and I think they are up there for the very reason that you probably think they’re up there," Joy Reid replied. 

"It is a pivotal moment here," Maddow chimed in.

Former President Biden took veiled shots at the emergence of Big Tech support for Trump in his farewell address, warning that an "oligarchy" was emerging in America. 

"An oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy. Our basic rights, freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead," Biden said. 

Privacy groups, experts, parents laud SCOTUS TikTok ban while others slam decision as ‘anti-democratic’

Legal experts, privacy groups and parents alike applauded the Supreme Court's Friday ruling upholding a federal law banning TikTok unless it is divested from its Chinese parent company ByteDance, while others deemed it as "anti-democratic."

The ban is set to go into effect on Sunday.

"There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community," the court wrote in the unsigned ruling. "But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary."

SUPREME COURT APPEARS SKEPTICAL OF BLOCKING US BAN ON TIKTOK: WHAT TO KNOW

Former Vice President Mike Pence turned to X and called the decision "a victory for the privacy and security of the American people."

"This law was the result of a bipartisan cooperation and I commend it's authors and supporters in Congress for enacting this vital law for our national security," he continued. The CCP has been put on notice that the American people’s data is no longer for the taking. The incoming Trump administration must be prepared to uphold this TikTok divestment law and put the privacy and security of America first."

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., likewise said the Supreme Court "correctly rejected TikTok’s lies and propaganda masquerading as legal arguments" in a post on X. 

"ByteDance and its Chinese Communist masters had nine months to sell TikTok before the Sunday deadline," the senator wrote. "The very fact that Communist China refuses to permit its sale reveals exactly what TikTok is: a communist spy app. The Supreme Court correctly rejected TikTok’s lies and propaganda masquerading as legal arguments."

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., said the decision was "unsurprising, and the answer is that the Chinese government needs to give up control of TikTok."

Carrie Severino, President of Judicial Crisis Network, echoed Cotton's sentiments, also saying in a statement that the high court "rightly recognizes the danger of the Chinese Communist Party being able to access and maliciously deploy the data of hundreds of millions of Americans."

READ THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON TIKTOK LAW – APP USERS, CLICK HERE

President Biden notably maintained his stance that he would enforce the law banning the social media app and would instead punt the implementation to President-elect Donald Trump and his incoming administration. 

Severino stated she hopes "that President Trump's incoming administration vigorously enforces this important national security law."

Executive Director of American Parents Coalition Alleigh Marré also posted on X reacting to the holding. "This is a huge win for parents! Kids will be free from TikTok’s poison, its powerful, dangerous algorithm and compromising influences."

"I am incredibly proud to see that the highest court in the land has agreed that our elected officials hold the power to protect our national security from our most powerful foreign adversaries," said Michael Lucci, Founder and CEO of State Arumor, in a statement. "This decision is a vindication of the tireless work of so many patriotic groups, including State Armor, have done over the last year to make the public and lawmakers aware of the dangers that TikTok poses."

Lucci continued on to call for TikTok's sale to an American company "or immediately cease all operations within the United States, per the Supreme Court’s decision."

Others reacted to the Supreme Court's decision with disappointment, including Electronic Frontier Foundation Civil Liberties Director David Greene who called the holding "anti-democratic." 

TRUMP SAYS FATE OF TIKTOK SHOULD BE IN HIS HANDS WHEN HE RETURNS TO WHITE HOUSE

"Shutting down communications platforms or forcing their reorganization based on concerns of foreign propaganda and anti-national manipulation is an eminently anti-democratic tactic, one that the U.S. has previously condemned globally," he said in a statement released. 

Likewise, Dean of UC Berkeley School of Law Erwin Chemerinsky told Fox News Digital in a statement that he believes the Court was "wrong" in its decision. 

"Although unanimous, I think the Court was wrong," Chemerinsky said. "It accepted uncritically the government’s argument that China being able to gather information would harm national security; it never explained what kind of information is likely to be gathered to what effect.

"The impact on speech is staggering to ban a platform used by 173 million people in this country," he continued. 

Just last year, Congress required that TikTok's China-based parent company ByteDance divest the company by Jan. 19. The law was subsequently signed by Biden.

When the law was passed, Congress specifically noted concerns over the app's Chinese ownership, which members said meant the app had the potential to be weaponized or used to amass vast amounts of user data, including from the roughly 170 million Americans who use TikTok.

Fox News Digital's Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report. 

Supreme Court upholds looming TikTok ban

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that would ban the Chinese-owned social media platform TikTok just two days before the bipartisan divestiture law is slated to take effect.

"There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community," the court wrote in the unsigned ruling. "But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary. 

"For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the challenged provisions do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is affirmed."

There were no noted dissents.

At issue was the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, a law passed by Congress last April with wide bipartisan support. The law gave TikTok nine months to either divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be removed from U.S.-based app stores and hosting services. 

SUPREME COURT APPEARS SKEPTICAL OF BLOCKING US BAN ON TIKTOK: WHAT TO KNOW

In passing the law, Congress cited concerns over the app's Chinese ownership, which members said meant the app had the potential to be weaponized or used to amass vast amounts of user data, including from the roughly 170 million Americans who use TikTok.

TikTok, ByteDance and several users of the app swiftly sued to block the ban in May, arguing the legislation would suppress free speech for the millions of Americans who use the platform. After a lower court upheld the ban, the Supreme Court agreed to hear TikTok's emergency request to either block or pause implementation of the law under a fast-track timeline just nine days before the ban was slated to go into effect.

President-elect Donald Trump did not immediately respond to the Supreme Court decision, which comes just days before his inauguration. As president, Trump could move to delay the law, either by not enforcing it vigorously— which would allow TikTok more time to find a buyer, or continue operating as-is—or take other actions that would uphold the status quo.

Trump said he spoke by phone Friday with Chinese President Xi Jinping hours before the Supreme Court decision was published. Trump described the conversation between the two as being "a very good one" both for China and the U.S. He noted that the two had discussed shared interests, including TikTok. 

Trump has also invited TikTok CEO Shou Chew to attend his inauguration. Chew said he plans to attend.

READ THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON TIKTOK LAW – APP USERS, CLICK HERE:

During oral arguments, lawyers for the Biden administration reiterated the argument that TikTok’s Chinese ownership poses a "grave" national security risk for American users. 

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar cited risks that China could weaponize the app, including by manipulating its algorithm to prioritize certain content or by ordering parent company ByteDance to turn over vast amounts of user data compiled by TikTok on U.S. users.

TRUMP SAYS FATE OF TIKTOK SHOULD BE IN HIS HANDS WHEN HE RETURNS TO WHITE HOUSE

TikTok’s lawyers, meanwhile, sought to frame the case primarily as a restriction on free speech protections under the First Amendment, which the company has argued applies to TikTok’s U.S.-based incorporation.

Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, argued that the U.S. government has "no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda," and reiterated TikTok's position that the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution. 

Francisco also argued TikTok cannot divest from its Chinese parent company, citing portions of its source code and intellectual property that are housed in China.  

First Amendment protections must be considered under strict scrutiny, which requires the government to sustain a higher burden of proof in justifying a law's constitutionality. 

More specifically, laws that deal with First Amendment protections must be crafted to serve a compelling government interest, narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

It's a difficult legal test to satisfy in court. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit used it last month in considering the divestiture law, and still voted to uphold it— outlining a way that the Supreme Court could have theoretically considered the case under strict scrutiny and still opted to uphold the law.

During oral arguments at the Supreme Court, several justices appeared skeptical of the company's core argument, which is that the law is a restriction of speech.

"Exactly what is TikTok's speech here?" Justice Clarence Thomas asked in the first moments of oral arguments in an early sign of the court's apparent doubt that the law is in fact a First Amendment violation. 

POTENTIAL TIKTOK BAN: WHAT SOCIAL MEDIA APPS ARE POPPING UP IN APP STORES?


The Supreme Court and its 6-3 conservative majority have been historically deferential to Congress on matters of national security.

The divestiture law in question passed Congress last year under the guidance of top Justice Department officials, who worked directly with House lawmakers to write the bill and help it withstand possible legal challenges.

But it also comes at a time when President-elect Trump has signaled apparent support for the app in recent months.

In December, Trump hosted TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at his Mar-a-Lago resort, and later told reporters that his incoming administration will "take a look at TikTok" and the divestiture case. 

Attorneys for the president-elect also filed a brief with the Supreme Court last month, asking justices to delay any decision in the case until after Trump's inauguration on Jan. 20.

The brief did not signal how Trump might act, but cited his request for the court to pause the ban from taking effect until Trump's inauguration. 

Fox News' Bill Mears and Shannon Bream contributed to this report.

Meta makes major move back to free speech and ends 3rd-party fact-checking program

In 2022, Elon Musk acquired Twitter and made a series of changes to the platform, including changing its name to X and introducing Community Notes, which is a feature that allows users to add context or fact-check potentially misleading posts.

This approach differs from Meta’s model, which relies on third-party, independent fact-checking organizations to flag misleading posts on Instagram, Facebook and Threads (its rival to X). 

However, CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently announced that Meta will stop working with these organizations and instead implement an X-like Community Notes feature. Zuckerberg also revealed a series of other major changes to the company's moderation policies and practices, aimed at offering people more freedom of expression.

I’M GIVING AWAY THE LATEST & GREATEST AIRPODS PRO 2

Zuckerberg announced Tuesday that the social media company would stop working with third-party fact-checking organizations. In a video posted on Instagram and Facebook, Zuckerberg said the company's content moderation approach resulted too often in "censorship."

"After Trump first got elected in 2016, the legacy media wrote nonstop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy. We tried in good faith to address those concerns without becoming the arbiters of truth," Zuckerberg said. "But the fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created, especially in the U.S."

Zuckerberg said that Meta will end its fact-checking program with trusted partners and replace it with a community-driven system similar to X’s Community Notes.

For the unaware, Community Notes on X allows users to collaboratively add context or fact-check potentially misleading posts. When a tweet is flagged for misinformation or lack of context, users can submit notes that provide additional information or correct inaccuracies. 

These notes are then reviewed by other users, who can upvote or downvote the contributions based on their helpfulness and accuracy. If a note receives enough support, it becomes visible beneath the original tweet, offering a balanced view and helping to inform others.

HOW TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM SOCIAL MEDIA SCAMMERS

Independent fact-checkers, however, aren’t happy with the change.

"Fact-checking journalism has never censored or removed posts; it’s added information and context to controversial claims, and it’s debunked hoax content and conspiracy theories. The fact-checkers used by Meta follow a code of principles requiring nonpartisanship and transparency," said Angie Drobnic Holan, director of the International Fact-Checking Network.

WHAT IS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)?

HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FACEBOOK ACCOUNT FROM HACKERS

Zuckerberg also revealed plans to overhaul Meta's recommendation system, which determines the content shown to users. For years, the company has restricted political content, citing user feedback and concerns about the impact of social media on beliefs.

"We built a lot of complex systems to moderate content, but the problem with complex systems is they make mistakes," Zuckerberg said. "Even if they accidentally censor just 1% of posts, that's millions of people, and we've reached a point where it's just too many mistakes and too much censorship."

He added that Meta would eliminate some content policies on controversial issues, including immigration and gender, and refocus its automated moderation on what he described as high-severity violations. The company will now take a more personalized approach to political content so that people who want to see more of it in their feeds can see it.

In addition, Facebook will relocate its trust and safety and content moderation teams from California to Texas. Zuckerberg also said Meta would collaborate with the incoming Trump administration to promote free speech globally, though he did not provide specific details.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

FACEBOOK AND INSTAGRAM ARE USING YOUR DATA TO TRAIN AI: LEARN HOW TO PROTECT YOURSELF

Meta's platforms, like Facebook and Instagram, have been more tightly moderated compared to platforms like X, which has meant less freedom of expression for users. The changes Zuckerberg announced on Tuesday aim to relax those rules, letting people share their thoughts more freely. This could lead to more offensive content, but that's the trade-off for more freedom. The introduction of Community Notes is a good change, too, as it gives users more control instead of leaving it to a small group of people who might be biased toward a certain political party or issue.

What do you think about the changes Zuckerberg is making to Meta’s content moderation? Let us know by writing us at Cyberguy.com/Contact.

For more of my tech tips and security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading to Cyberguy.com/Newsletter.

Ask Kurt a question or let us know what stories you'd like us to cover.

Follow Kurt on his social channels:

Answers to the most asked CyberGuy questions:

New from Kurt:

Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.

Supreme Court weighs TikTok ban Friday; national security, free speech arguments are considered

The Supreme Court on Friday will hear oral arguments about a U.S. law requiring TikTok to either divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be banned from operating in the U.S. It's a heavily followed case that pits national security concerns against free speech protections for millions of Americans.

The court agreed in December to hold an expedited hearing on the case, giving it just nine days to decide whether to uphold TikTok's request to halt or delay the ban passed by Congress before it takes effect Jan. 19. 

It is unlikely the court will take that long, however, and justices are expected to issue a ruling or order in a matter of days.

The case comes as TikTok continues to be one of the most popular social media apps in the U.S. with an estimated 170 million users nationwide. 

'HIGHLY QUALIFIED': FORMER STATE AGS URGE SENATE TO CONFIRM BONDI TO LEAD JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

President-elect Trump has also signaled support for the app, putting the case further into the national spotlight in the final weeks before his inauguration.

Ahead of Friday's oral arguments, here's what to know about the arguments and how the Supreme Court might act.

TikTok arguments, alleged free speech violations 

TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, are urging the court to either block or delay the enforcement of a law Congress passed with bipartisan backing in April.

The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act gave TikTok nine months to either divest from its Chinese parent company or be removed from U.S. app stores and hosting services. Its owners have said repeatedly they will not do so. It also grants the president a 90-day window to delay the ban if TikTok says a divestiture is in progress.

TikTok, ByteDance and several users of the app swiftly sued to block the ban in May, arguing the legislation would suppress free speech for the millions of Americans who use the platform. 

Lawyers for TikTok argued that the law violates First Amendment protections, describing it as an "unprecedented attempt to single out applicants and bar them from operating one of the most significant speech platforms in this nation" and noting that lawmakers failed to consider less restrictive alternatives compared to an outright ban.

"History and precedent teach that, even when national security is at stake, speech bans must be Congress’s last resort," attorneys said in a reply brief filed last month to the high court. 

National security concerns 

Congress has cited concerns that China, a country it considers a foreign adversary of the U.S., could use TikTok to download vast troves of user data and push certain Chinese government-backed content onto users, prompting it to order the divestiture last spring. 

The Biden administration also echoed these concerns. In a Supreme Court brief, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar noted the law focuses solely on China’s control of the app, which the Biden administration argued could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans, rather than its content. 

Beijing could "covertly manipulate the platform" to advance geopolitical interests in the U.S., Prelogar noted, or use the vast amount of user data it has amassed for either espionage or blackmail. 

Lawyers for the administration will argue Friday that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech— much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content — and failed to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment. 

The Biden administration also filed under seal classified evidence to the court that it argued "lends further support" to its conclusion that TikTok under ByteDance ownership should be banned. 

That evidence has not been released to the public. 

Political pressures 

The Supreme Court's decision to fast-track the case comes as President-elect Trump has signaled apparent support for the app in recent months.

In December, Trump hosted TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at his Mar-a-Lago resort, telling reporters during a press conference his incoming administration will "take a look at TikTok" and the divestiture case. 

"I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok," Trump told reporters.

Attorneys for the president-elect also filed a brief with the Supreme Court last month, asking justices to delay any decision in the case until after Trump's inauguration Jan. 20.

The brief did not signal how Trump might act. 

Still, attorneys for TikTok have cited that relationship directly in their Supreme Court filings. Last month, they argued an interim injunction is appropriate "because it will give the incoming Administration time to determine its position, as the President-elect and his advisors have voiced support for saving TikTok.

"There is a strong public interest that this Court have the opportunity to exercise plenary review.

The case also comes amid a groundswell of support from some lawmakers in Congress. 

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.; Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass.; and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., filed a brief Thursday urging the Supreme Court to reverse the ban, arguing the lawmakers do not have sufficient evidence needed to outweigh free speech protections granted under the First Amendment. 

In the brief, lawmakers referenced the nation's longtime reliance on national security claims as a means of justifying censorship, citing examples from the Sedition Acts of the 18th and 20th centuries and Cold War-era free speech restrictions. Banning TikTok due to "speculative concerns" about foreign interference, they argued, is "unconstitutional and contradicts fundamental American values." 

They argued the U.S. could adopt less drastic measures that would effectively address any data security concerns posed by the app while also not infringing on First Amendment rights.

Others remained deeply opposed. 

Sen. Mitch McConnell blasted TikTok's arguments as "unmeritless and unsound" in a filing of his own, noting that Congress explicitly set the Jan. 19 date for the divestiture clause to take force since it "very clearly removes any possible political uncertainty in the execution of the law by cabining it to an administration that was deeply supportive of the bill’s goals."

Meta ends fact-checking program as Zuckerberg vows to restore free expression on Facebook, Instagram

FIRST ON FOX – Meta is ending its fact-checking program and lifting restrictions on speech to "restore free expression" across Facebook, Instagram and Meta platforms, admitting its current content moderation practices have "gone too far." 

"We’re going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms," Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a video posted Tuesday morning. "More specifically, we’re going to get rid of fact-checkers and replace them with Community Notes similar to X, starting in the U.S." 

Meta’s chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, joined Fox News Channel’s "Fox & Friends" Tuesday morning for an exclusive interview to discuss the changes. 

"This is a great opportunity for us to reset the balance in favor of free expression. As Mark says in that video, what we're doing is we're getting back to our roots and free expression," Kaplan told "Fox & Friends."

Meta’s third-party fact-checking program was put in place after the 2016 election and had been used to "manage content" and misinformation on its platforms, largely due to "political pressure," executives said, but admitted the system has "gone too far." 

HOUSE WEAPONIZATION PANEL RELEASES 17,000-PAGE REPORT EXPOSING 'TWO-TIERED SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT'

"We went to independent, third-party fact-checkers," Kaplan told Fox News Digital in an interview. "It has become clear there is too much political bias in what they choose to fact-check because, basically, they get to fact-check whatever they see on the platform." 

Kaplan told Fox News Digital that Meta is "ending that completely" and will replace it with a "Community Notes" model similar to the one used on X, formerly Twitter.

"Instead of going to some so-called expert, it instead relies on the community and the people on the platform to provide their own commentary to something that they’ve read," Kaplan explained, noting that if a note gets support from "the broadest cross-section of users," that note can be attached to the content for others to see. 

"We think that’s a much better approach rather than relying on so-called experts who bring their own biases into the program," Kaplan said.

ZUCKERBERG SAYS TRUMP FIST-PUMP REACTION TO SHOOTING WAS ‘BADA--’

Kaplan also told Fox News Digital that Meta is changing some of its own content moderation rules, especially those that they feel are "too restrictive and not allowing enough discourse around sensitive topics like immigration, trans issues and gender."

"We want to make sure that discourse can happen freely on the platform without fear of censorship," Kaplan told Fox News Digital. "We have the power to change the rules and make them more supportive of free expression. And we’re not just changing the rules, we are actually changing how we enforce the rules."

Kaplan said Meta currently uses automated systems, which he said make "too many mistakes" and removes content "that doesn’t even violate our standards."

He also said there are certain things Meta will continue to moderate, like posts relating to terrorism, illegal drugs and child sexual exploitation.

But as for the timing of the changes, Kaplan told Fox News Digital the company has "a real opportunity now."

ZUCKERBERG, EXPRESSING REGRETS, ADMITS BOWING TO BIDEN ADMINISTRATION PRESSURE TO REMOVE CONTENT

"We have a new administration coming in that is far from pressuring companies to censor and [is more] a huge supporter of free expression," Kaplan said, referring to the incoming Trump administration. "It gets us back to the values that Mark founded the company on."

Last year, Zuckerberg sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee in which he admitted that he felt pressure from the Biden administration, particularly with regard to COVID content, and even items like satire and humor. 

"The thing is, as American companies, when other governments around the world that don’t have our tradition or our First Amendment, when they see the United States government pressuring U.S. companies to take down content, it is just open season then for those governments to put more pressure [on their companies]," Kaplan explained. "We do think it is a real opportunity to work with the Trump administration and to work on free expression at home."

MUSK PROVES HUNTER BIDEN CENSORSHIP CAME FROM COLLUSION AMONG BIDEN CAMPAIGN, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND TWITTER

Kaplan also said Meta sees "opportunities for partnership" with the Trump administration, not only on issues of free expression but also in "promoting American business and America’s technological edge." 

"Those are issues of great importance to Meta and our sector," Kaplan told Fox News Digital. "And we’re excited to work with the Trump administration to advance those goals."

Meanwhile, Meta also said it plans to take a more personalized approach to political content, so that users who want to see more posts of that kind can do so.

Meta said it will refocus its enforcement efforts to "illegal and high-severity violations."

House Weaponization panel releases 17,000-page report exposing 'two-tiered system of government'

FIRST ON FOX: The House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government released a more than 17,000-page report detailing its work this Congress, touting their success in protecting Americans against censorship of speech and the weaponization of federal law enforcement agencies, Fox News Digital has learned. 

Fox News Digital obtained the 17,019-page report compiled by the subcommittee, which falls under the House Judiciary Committee, led by Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. 

"The Weaponization Committee conducted rigorous oversight of the Biden-Harris administrations weaponized government and uncovered numerous examples of federal government abuses," Jordan told Fox News Digital. "Through our oversight, we protected the First Amendment by investigating the censorship-industrial-complex, heard from numerous brave whistleblowers, stopped the targeting of Americans by the IRS and Department of Justice, and created serious legislative and policy changes that will benefit all Americans." 

The report, first obtained by Fox News Digital, states that the "founding documents of the United States articulate the ideals of the American republic and guarantee to all American citizens fundamental rights and liberties. 

"For too long, however, the American people have faced a two-tiered system of government—one of favorable treatment for the politically-favored class, and one of intimidation and unfairness for the rest of American citizens," it continues. "Under the Biden-Harris Administration, the contrast between these two tiers has become even more stark." 

HOUSE WEAPONIZATION COMMITTEE: BIDEN ADMIN 'COLLUDED' WITH BIG TECH, 'FACILITATED THE CENSORSHIP OF AMERICANS'

The committee was created to "stand up for the American people," the report says, highlighting its work to "bring abuses by the federal government into the light for the American people and ensure that Congress, as their elected representatives, can take action to remedy them." 

The mission of the subcommittee was to "protect and strengthen the fundamental rights of the American people," the report said, noting that by investigating, uncovering and documenting executive branch misconduct, lawmakers on the panel have taken "important steps to ensure that the federal government no longer works against the American people." 

"This work is not complete, but it is a necessary first step to stop the weaponization of the federal government," the report states. 

The committee, from its inception, says it has been working to protect free speech and expand upon the constitutional protections of the First Amendment. 

JORDAN SUBPOENAS BIG TECH CEOS FOR RECORDS ON 'COLLUSION' WITH BIDEN ADMIN TO 'SUPPRESS FREE SPEECH'

"Throughout the Biden-Harris administration, multiple federal agencies, including the White House, have engaged in a vast censorship campaign against so-called mis-, dis-, or malinformation," the report states, noting that the subcommittee revealed the extent of the "censorship-industrial complex," and detailed how the federal government and law enforcement coordinated with academics, nonprofits, and other private entities to censor speech online." 

The panel is touting its work, saying its oversight has "had a real effect in expanding the First Amendment." 

"In a Supreme Court dissent, three justices noted how the Select Subcommittee’s investigation revealed that ‘valuable speech was..suppressed,’" the report states. 

BIDEN CAMPAIGN, BLINKEN ORCHESTRATED INTEL LETTER TO DISCREDIT HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP STORY, EX-CIA OFFICIAL SAYS

And in a letter to the subcommittee, Facebook and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted that the Biden-Harris administration "pressured" Facebook to censor Americans. 

"Facebook gave in to this pressure, demoting posts and content that was highly relevant to political discourse in the United States," the report states. 

And in another win for the subcommittee, in response to its work, universities and other groups shut down their "disinformation" research, and federal agencies "slowed their communications with Big Tech." 

MUSK PROVES HUNTER BIDEN CENSORSHIP CAME FROM COLLUSION AMONG BIDEN CAMPAIGN, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND TWITTER

The committee also celebrated a "big win" in October after it prevented the creation of a new "GARM," an advertising association that engaged in censorship and boycotts of conservative media companies. The committee revealed, before it was disbanded, that GARM had been discussing ways to ensure conservative news outlets and platforms could not receive advertising dollars and were engaged in boycotts of conservative voices and Twitter once it became "X" under the ownership of Elon Musk. 

Meanwhile, the subcommittee also investigated the alleged weaponization of federal law enforcement resources. 

In speaking with a number of whistleblowers, the subcommittee learned of waste, fraud and abuse at the FBI. 

"When these whistleblowers came forward, the bureau brutally retaliated against many of them for breaking ranks—suspending them without pay, preventing them from seeking outside employment, and even purging suspected disloyal employees," the report states, noting that the subcommittee revealed that the FBI "abused its security clearance adjudication process to target whistleblowers." 

The report references the FBI’s response, in which the bureau admitted its "error" and reinstated the security clearance of one decorated FBI employee. 

FBI INTERVIEWED PRIEST, CHURCH CHOIR DIRECTOR AHEAD OF ANTI-CATHOLIC MEMO, HOUSE GOP FINDS

The subcommittee also was tasked with investigating the executive branch’s actions in "intruding and interfering with Americans’ constitutionally protected activity." 

For example, the subcommittee revealed "and stopped" the FBI’s effort to target Catholic Americans because of their religious views; detailed the DOJ’s directives to target parents at school board meetings; stopped the Internal Revenue Service from making "unannounced visits to American taxpayers’ homes;" caused the DOJ to change its internal policies to "respect the separation of powers and limit subpoenas for Legislative Branch employees; and highlighted the "vast warrantless surveillance of Americans by federal law enforcement." 

The panel also investigated the federal government’s election interference, highlighting the FBI’s "fervent efforts to ‘prebunk’ a story about the Biden family’s influence peddling scheme in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election." 

CIA 'MAY HAVE ASSISTED IN OBTAINING SIGNATORIES' FOR LETTER DISCREDITING HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP: HOUSE GOP REPORT

The panel also investigated and demonstrated how the 2020 Biden campaign "colluded with the intelligence community to falsely discredit this story as ‘Russian disinformation.’"

The report includes a list of hearings the subcommittee held, letters sent by the subcommittee and subpoenas issued by the panel.

It also includes depositions and transcribed interviews conducted by the subcommittee. The subcommittee conducted 99 depositions and transcribed interviews during this Congress.

Depositions and interviews included in the massive report are of former FBI officials and CIA officials, like former Director John Brennan, former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office involved in the original hush money probe against President Trump, Mark Pomerantz, and interviews with Facebook, Meta and Google officials.

❌