How Meta and Mark Zuckerberg Endangered U.S. Security in Pursuit of Profit

For years, the U.S. government’s scrutiny of Facebook, now known as Meta, has focused largely on antitrust concerns. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has taken a leading role in challenging Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, alleging these moves illegally cemented its monopoly in social media. 

However, focusing exclusively on these antitrust issues obscures a more serious threat that Meta poses to U.S. national security and technological competitiveness.

Recent revelations expose how Meta systematically undermined American security interests to gain access to the lucrative Chinese market.

The scale and deliberate intent behind these actions suggest that CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other executives should face not only regulatory penalties but criminal accountability.

One of the most alarming examples is Project Aldrin, a covert initiative by Meta to break into China’s heavily censored internet landscape. Congressional testimony from former Facebook executive Sarah Wynn-Williams has shed light on how the company designed custom censorship tools explicitly to satisfy the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). 

These tools were crafted to monitor, filter, and suppress content that Beijing deemed sensitive or harmful to its regime.

Meta’s top leadership did more than simply comply. They actively provided technical expertise in artificial intelligence (AI) and content moderation directly to CCP officials.

These briefings included sharing the inner workings of Meta’s algorithms, which Chinese engineers adapted for military AI programs and for use by the startup DeepSeek, known for its surveillance technologies.

Wynn-Williams, author of the memoir Careless People, has revealed there were no limits to what Meta was willing to do to maintain good relations with Chinese authorities.

Zuckerberg himself reportedly dedicated significant effort to learning Mandarin and made multiple trips to China, more than to any other country, showing a clear commitment to cultivating ties with Beijing.

In a symbolic but telling anecdote, Zuckerberg asked Chinese President Xi Jinping to give a Chinese name to his daughter. While Xi declined, the gesture highlighted Zuckerberg’s deep personal and professional investment in securing Meta’s foothold in China.

Meta’s facilitation of authoritarian control was not confined to Chinese borders. Despite publicly promoting free expression and democratic ideals, the company collaborated extensively with Beijing’s censorship regime.

It developed sophisticated monitoring systems alongside mainland engineers, deploying them in China and politically sensitive regions such as Hong Kong and Taiwan to suppress dissent.

During Project Aldrin, Meta’s development teams shared detailed technical briefings on Facebook’s content moderation algorithms. These algorithms, crucial for filtering content on Facebook, were co-opted by the CCP to quell pro-democracy protests and silence opposition voices.

Meta’s willingness to censor and control content extended to users outside China. Under pressure from Beijing, Meta suspended the U.S.-based account of Chinese dissident Guo Wengui.

This suspension followed China’s blocking of WhatsApp, indicating a clear quid pro quo arrangement: censorship in exchange for continued market access.

By participating in China’s global campaign to silence dissenters, Meta violated the very free speech values Zuckerberg publicly championed. The betrayal went further as internal documents and whistleblower testimony revealed Zuckerberg and other executives repeatedly lied to Congress about these actions.

In 2017, Facebook’s then-general counsel Colin Stretch denied before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the blocking of Guo’s account resulted from political pressure, a statement contradicted by subsequent disclosures.

A year later, Senator Patrick Leahy asked Zuckerberg directly if Meta built censorship tools to comply with Chinese laws, to which Zuckerberg falsely replied that he was unaware of such government influence.

While Facebook’s core social network remains blocked in China, Meta has maintained other significant operations in the country. By 2024, Meta’s sales in China reportedly reached $18.3 billion, mostly from e-commerce and gaming advertisers. These revenues illustrate Meta’s heavy financial reliance on China despite its public claims.

Internal communications confirm that by 2018 Zuckerberg and other Meta executives had been in close dialogue with CCP officials for at least four years, negotiating terms that included collaboration on surveillance and content control technology.

Most disturbing is Meta’s data infrastructure, designed to grant the Chinese government access to the personal information of American citizens. Unlike other countries that demanded local data storage, which Meta refused, China’s insistence was quietly accepted.

This architecture means that any communication between users inside and outside China subjects foreign users’ data to Chinese jurisdiction and control. Internal Meta documents acknowledged that Chinese government access to U.S. user data was inevitable, not just a risk.

The consequences of this complicity are profound. Meta’s assistance enabled China to leapfrog American companies in surveillance technology and AI capabilities, posing a significant strategic threat. The exposure of American citizens, politicians, and businesses to espionage is a direct result of these arrangements.

Moreover, technologies initially built to oppress Chinese dissidents have been repurposed to influence elections and suppress political speech internationally. These developments signal a weakening of U.S. influence and security in the digital domain.

This crisis cannot be dismissed as corporate negligence. Meta’s actions represent a conscious endangerment of U.S. national security for corporate profit. The company prioritized market access and revenue over the privacy and safety of its users and the country.

By collaborating with one of the most repressive regimes in the world, Meta violated fundamental democratic principles and damaged American cybersecurity infrastructure. The global balance of technological power has shifted detrimentally due to this collusion.

In a different historical context, aiding a foreign adversary in such a way would have ended the existence of the company and brought legal consequences for its leaders. Yet, the current governmental response remains focused primarily on antitrust issues and whether to break up Meta’s monopoly.

Given these revelations, the American public and lawmakers must confront the broader national security implications. It is imperative to launch criminal investigations into Meta’s deliberate violations and hold Mark Zuckerberg personally accountable.

The damage wrought extends beyond the United States. Meta’s actions threaten democratic institutions worldwide by enabling authoritarian regimes to suppress dissent and monitor citizens with unprecedented efficiency.

This saga highlights the urgent need for stronger governmental oversight over powerful technology companies. National security and user privacy must be paramount considerations, not afterthoughts sacrificed for profit.

As Meta continues to expand its reach, ensuring transparency and enforcing accountability mechanisms are essential to safeguard democratic values. The public deserves clear answers about the scope of Meta’s cooperation with authoritarian regimes.

Meta’s cooperation with China serves as a stark warning about the dangers of unfettered corporate power operating without regard for ethical and legal boundaries. The pursuit of market dominance should never come at the expense of national security or human rights.

Moving forward, policymakers must design regulations that prevent tech giants from engaging in covert collaborations that endanger the country. This includes stricter controls on data storage, access, and corporate transparency.

The ongoing erosion of trust between citizens and technology companies makes it critical to restore confidence through meaningful reform. Without this, the digital future remains perilous.

Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta must be held accountable not just in courts of law but also in the court of public opinion. The company’s role in compromising U.S. security has exposed systemic vulnerabilities that demand urgent redress.

Only with decisive action can the U.S. protect its technological sovereignty and reaffirm its commitment to democratic principles in an increasingly digital world. The stakes could not be higher.