Messaging app owned by Meta Platforms
Reason: Undermining Democracy and Financing Trump
WhatsApp is a subsidiary of Meta Platforms Inc., formerly Facebook Inc. Meta acquired WhatsApp in 2014 for approximately $19 billion, placing one of the world’s largest messaging systems under the direct control of Mark Zuckerberg, who holds majority voting power and a dominant equity stake in the company.
With more than 2 billion users across the globe, WhatsApp is far more than a simple chat app — it functions as core infrastructure for personal communication, political organizing, crisis response, and community life in dozens of countries. Decisions made by Meta leadership about policy, speech, or governance on WhatsApp ripple outward into entire societies. That level of influence is exactly why the platform’s political alignment and corporate decision-making warrant close public scrutiny.
Evidence & Context
Parent company: Meta Platforms
Meta Platforms, Inc. (the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Threads) controls some of the most powerful communications infrastructure on Earth. WhatsApp, which Meta acquired in 2014 for approximately $19 billion, serves more than 2 billion users worldwide. Under Mark Zuckerberg’s control — he retains majority voting power and a substantial equity stake — Meta’s decisions shape how people organize, communicate, and receive news worldwide.
The concern is no longer just about product design or convenience. It is about how Meta utilizes this power: its political alliances, its settlements with political leaders, and the ways it influences policies governing speech and information when those leaders return to power.
Post-2024 Alignment with the Trump Administration
After the 2024 election, Meta made a $1 million donation to the Trump inaugural fund — a move reported by the BBC . Meta had not donated to Trump’s first inauguration, nor to Biden’s. The new contribution signaled a sharp and deliberate shift.
Shortly before this donation, Mark Zuckerberg met privately with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago in November 2024, a meeting covered by NPR . Soon after, Meta agreed to pay roughly $25 million to settle Trump’s lawsuit over the suspension of his account following the January 6, 2021, incident — a settlement described by the Associated Press.
Taken together — the private meeting, the inauguration donation, and the sizable settlement — analysts have raised serious questions about whether Meta is positioning itself for favorable treatment in antitrust enforcement, Section 230, election integrity oversight, and content moderation rules under a Trump administration.
Policy Shifts and Fact-Checking Rollbacks
Following the 2024 election, Meta also adjusted its public policy stance. The company ended its fact-checking program, a move widely read as a concession to conservative and pro-Trump media ecosystems and celebrated by Trump himself, as reported by The Hill.
Ending fact-checking at the same time that Meta was rebuilding ties with Trump and settling his lawsuit is not a neutral product decision. It materially changes what information appears credible on Meta’s platforms and who benefits from loosened guardrails — especially around political content and disinformation.
WhatsApp’s Founder and the Trump-Aligned Money Network
The political alignment concerns extend into the leadership network around Meta’s products. WhatsApp’s co-founder and former CEO, Jan Koum, has become a major funder of Trump-aligned political operations. His donations, as documented by OpenSecrets, show sustained high-dollar support for conservative and pro-Trump groups.
Koum’s contributions include:
- October 29, 2024: $100,000 to Congressional Leadership Fund
- October 10, 2024: $5,070,414 to Make America Great Again Inc (major pro-Trump super PAC)
- October 3, 2024: $1,005,896 to Maryland’s Future
- October 3, 2024: $1,005,891 to Keystone Renewal PAC
- August 27, 2024: $2,432,880 to Republican Jewish Coalition Victory Fund
- August 20, 2024: $500,000 to Keystone Renewal PAC
- June 22, 2024: $2,500,000 to SFA Fund
- August 31, 2023: $5,000,000 to SFA Fund
- February 16, 2023: $2,500,000 to FA Fund
This pattern is not a one-off check; it is a sustained funding pipeline into Trump-aligned super PACs, messaging operations, and electoral influence efforts. It illustrates how the ownership and leadership circles around Meta’s products are deeply intertwined with a specific political project.
Meta, Messaging Infrastructure, and Political Power
When you put these pieces together — Meta’s inauguration donation, the Mar-a-Lago meeting, the lawsuit settlement, the rollback of fact-checking, and the Trump-aligned funding network surrounding WhatsApp’s leadership — a clear picture emerges: Meta is not a neutral communication utility. It is a political actor that owns and controls key infrastructure for speech and organizing globally.
This matters for every user of Meta products: Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Threads. These are not just apps; they are privately owned gateways to information, relationships, and political discourse. When that gateway aligns itself with a specific political movement, it raises urgent questions about who gets amplified, who gets silenced, and whose interests are protected.
Bottom Line
Meta Platforms’ inclusion in the Big Beautiful Boycott is not about whether its apps are convenient or popular. It is about refusing to normalize a world where a handful of billionaires own the communication channels, fund specific political movements, and quietly change platform rules in ways that protect their relationships with power.
Choosing alternatives to Meta’s ecosystem — for messaging, social networking, and organizing — is a way to push back against the consolidation of communication power in the hands of one politically entangled corporation and to demand a digital public sphere that serves people, not just presidents and platform owners.
How to Boycott WhatsApp
WhatsApp users, admins, and community moderators have no control over Meta’s political donations, settlements, or policy changes. Keep interactions compassionate and avoid placing responsibility on everyday people.
Use verified sources when talking about WhatsApp’s leadership circles, Jan Koum’s political donations, Meta’s policy shifts, and its strategic alignment. Clear facts help others understand why alternatives matter.
Everyday Facebook users, Instagram creators, WhatsApp group admins, and Meta support staff do not control the company’s political decisions, fact-checking rollbacks, or legal settlements. Keep discussions respectful and focused on corporate leadership.
From parent company: Meta Platforms
Use verified reporting when talking about Meta’s inauguration donation, lawsuit settlement, fact-checking rollback, and its leadership’s alignment with political power. Clear, factual communication strengthens the integrity of the boycott.
From parent company: Meta Platforms
Start migrating personal or group chats to alternatives like Signal, Telegram, Session, or Matrix. Each conversation moved reduces WhatsApp’s centrality in your communication life and shifts power away from Meta’s political and policy influence.
Suggest privacy-focused apps for group coordination, school chats, team updates, or family discussions. Adopting alternatives weakens WhatsApp’s dominance and helps build healthier, decentralized communication ecosystems.
Adopt alternatives like Signal, Mastodon, Matrix/Element, Bluesky, or other decentralized networks. Each switch decreases your reliance on a corporation that influences speech rules, settles political lawsuits, and shapes communication policy behind closed doors.
From parent company: Meta Platforms
Suggest that your workplace or community shift group chats, announcements, or event coordination away from Meta platforms. These institutional changes weaken Meta’s dominance and reduce its leverage over public conversation and organizing.
From parent company: Meta Platforms
Begin by moving specific groups—such as volunteer teams, friends, or project chats—to other messaging platforms. Even partial migration reduces WhatsApp’s influence without requiring an immediate full break.
If leaving Meta entirely feels difficult, begin by moving specific conversations or friend groups to other platforms. Even partial shifts reduce Meta’s ability to control what news, content, or speech is prioritized across billions of people.
From parent company: Meta Platforms
Limit or discontinue personal conversations on WhatsApp. Using Meta-owned messaging tools reinforces the political influence, policy choices, and platform control that shape global communication in ways that benefit powerful leadership networks.
Refrain from starting new community, school, neighborhood, or organizational group chats on WhatsApp. Growing these spaces deepens reliance on Meta’s infrastructure and expands the influence of a politically aligned communication platform.
Skip using WhatsApp for customer support, sales, or organizational communication. These integrations strengthen Meta’s role in critical information channels while its leadership aligns strategically with political actors and deregulation efforts.
Limit or stop using Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp whenever possible. Your activity on these platforms strengthens Meta’s political influence, centralized control over communication infrastructure, and its shift toward alignment with partisan power.
From parent company: Meta Platforms
Do not purchase Meta Verified, ad-free Instagram/Facebook subscriptions, or premium features. These payments increase Meta’s ability to shape policy discussions, influence public information flow, and maintain its dominant hold on global communication channels.
From parent company: Meta Platforms
Refrain from using Meta platforms to share, boost, or discuss political content. This reduces your contribution to Meta’s information ecosystem at a moment when its policy rollbacks and political alliances distort the visibility and credibility of public discourse.
From parent company: Meta Platforms
Contact
These are the public contact methods for this company. If you have thoughts, feedback, or concerns about their actions or policies, these are the channels they provide for hearing from the public.