Policy

What could make Facebook reinstate Trump? 2024.

The Facebook Oversight Board's decision won't just influence Trump's post-presidency. It could impact his 2024 candidacy too.

Facebook crack

The Facebook Oversight Board's decisions have global effects.

Image: Eynav Raphael/Protocol

Facebook's decision to suspend President Trump's account has already helped make his post-presidency relatively quiet. But if the Facebook Oversight Board announces this week that the ban will be permanent, the much more pressing question is: What would that do to his 2024 candidacy?

Yeah, we said it.

Like it or not — and more than 81 million Americans almost certainly don't like it — Trump is still both fundraising and speaking like someone who plans to run for president in the next election, and early polls have shown he would handily win his party's nomination if he does. That shred of uncertainty significantly raises the stakes of the board's decision, which it plans to announce Wednesday and which Facebook has pledged to implement.

With this case, the board is not only making an unprecedented call about whether the man who was once president of the United States has access to Facebook's audience of 3 billion people. It's also deciding whether a man who could become president again will ever have access to that audience — a decision that could influence Trump's very ability to run and win.

"The idea of Trump running in 2024 is obviously something they're contemplating," said Kate Klonick, assistant professor at St. John's University Law School, who has studied and written about the Oversight Board since its inception. "But even if he wasn't, I think the board is probably contemplating the effect of their decision on any global leader."

For better and worse, Facebook has played a vital role in every election since the 2008 race between Barack Obama and John McCain. But no candidate has squeezed quite as much out of that platform as Trump, who not only ran an aggressive advertising campaign to help clinch his 2016 victory, but whose posts as president ranked among the top 10 in the U.S. on a near-daily basis. Without access to that audience, any campaign, but particularly a campaign as dependent on Facebook as Trump's, would be substantially diminished.

Strictly speaking, the future prospects of any one political candidate shouldn't matter to the board, said Evelyn Douek, a lecturer at Harvard Law School who has written extensively about the board's decisions. "The rules the board is supposed to be considering shouldn't be affected by the potential political effects of the decision," Douek said, noting that the board is supposed to make its decisions based on how well Facebook lived up to its own rules, its stated values and international human rights standards.

If the board made special accommodations for anyone who might become a political figure in the future, that would effectively preclude Facebook from banning anyone, Douek argued. And yet, she agreed with Klonick that Trump's future may well factor into the board's decision. "The board members are humans. They read the same news you and I do," Douek said. "It would be impossible for them to not have that in the back of their minds, as well."

When Facebook suspended Trump, Republicans had just lost power. Yielding to Democratic calls to ban him from the platform seemed like a politically pragmatic move, unprecedented as it was. But less than six months later, in the face of Trump's continued flirtation with a 2024 bid, that decision looks substantially messier.

The question is whether that messiness will influence the board's decision, and if so, how?

In a world where Trump became the Republican nominee for president again, it could be hard for Facebook to justify a continued suspension. Would the company really be able to say it was living up to its values of free expression if it silenced a major candidate for the American presidency, while giving the other candidates free rein?

On the other hand, after Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg publicly accused Trump of inciting a riot to overthrow a Democratic election, it would be impossible for Facebook to claim it prioritizes safety if it welcomed Trump back, effectively handing him the keys to the crime scene just as he was reasserting his political power.

These are questions that Twitter and other platforms that have given Trump the boot will inevitably have to grapple with too. But unlike Facebook, they haven't set up a pseudo-independent oversight board whose decisions they've pledged to honor.

Which presents a third option: The board could issue its decision on Wednesday, and then, depending on how many problems that decision poses for Facebook, Facebook could just change its mind. The board, after all, is a creation of Facebook's own making. It didn't exist two years ago. It will only continue to exist as intended if Facebook decides that it should.

Klonick, for one, believes it's unlikely that Facebook would act unilaterally to undermine the board's authority. "They put so much money and time into this," she said. "For them to pay no attention to the board is not in their interest." More likely, she said, is a situation where Facebook asks the board to revisit their decision if the circumstances under which they made that earlier decision change.

Whatever the board decides Wednesday, it will be playing a hand in history. The decision won't just dictate whether Trump resumes his daily diatribes on Facebook. It will impact his ability to play kingmaker in the 2022 midterms and even run for office in 2024. But more than that, it could have a global ripple effect, setting new precedents for how Facebook treats other world leaders who have repeatedly broken its rules.

"To me the most interesting part of the decision will be the recommendations for what they're going to do with other world leaders," Douek said. "Yes, the American political story is very important. But the global ramifications of this decision are really huge. I hope that doesn't get lost."

Climate

This carbon capture startup wants to clean up the worst polluters

The founder and CEO of point-source carbon capture company Carbon Clean discusses what the startup has learned, the future of carbon capture technology, as well as the role of companies like his in battling the climate crisis.

Carbon Clean CEO Aniruddha Sharma told Protocol that fossil fuels are necessary, at least in the near term, to lift the living standards of those who don’t have access to cars and electricity.

Photo: Carbon Clean

Carbon capture and storage has taken on increasing importance as companies with stubborn emissions look for new ways to meet their net zero goals. For hard-to-abate industries like cement and steel production, it’s one of the few options that exist to help them get there.

Yet it’s proven incredibly challenging to scale the technology, which captures carbon pollution at the source. U.K.-based company Carbon Clean is leading the charge to bring down costs. This year, it raised a $150 million series C round, which the startup said is the largest-ever funding round for a point-source carbon capture company.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma

Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol covering climate. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.
Workplace

Why companies cut staff after raising millions

Are tech firms blowing millions in funding just weeks after getting it? Experts say it's more complicated than that.

Bolt, Trade Republic, HomeLight, and Stord all drew attention from funding announcements that happened just weeks or days before layoffs.

Photo: Pulp Photography/Getty Images

Fintech startup Bolt was one of the first tech companies to slash jobs, cutting 250 employees, or a third of its staff, in May. For some workers, the pain of layoffs was a shock not only because they were the first, but also because the cuts came just four months after Bolt had announced a $355 million series E funding round and achieved a peak valuation of $11 billion.

“Bolt employees were blind sided because the CEO was saying just weeks ago how everything is fine,” an anonymous user wrote on the message board Blind. “It has been an extremely rough day for 1/3 of Bolt employees,” another user posted. “Sadly, I was one of them who was let go after getting a pay-raise just a couple of weeks ago.”

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht

Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.

Climate

The fight to define the carbon offset market's future

The world’s largest carbon offset issuer is fighting a voluntary effort to standardize the industry. And the fate of the climate could hang in the balance.

It has become increasingly clear that scaling the credit market will first require clear standards and transparency.

Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

There’s a major fight brewing over what kind of standards will govern the carbon offset market.

A group of independent experts looking to clean up the market’s checkered record and the biggest carbon credit issuer on the voluntary market is trying to influence efforts to define what counts as a quality credit. The outcome could make or break an industry increasingly central to tech companies meeting their net zero goals.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (ljenkins@protocol.com).

Policy

White House AI Bill of Rights lacks specific guidance for AI rules

The document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is long on tech guidance, but short on restrictions for AI.

While the document provides extensive suggestions for how to incorporate AI rights in technical design, it does not include any recommendations for restrictions on the use of controversial forms of AI.

Photo: Ana Lanza/Unsplash

It was a year in the making, but people eagerly anticipating the White House Bill of Rights for AI will have to continue waiting for concrete recommendations for future AI policy or restrictions.

Instead, the document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is legally non-binding and intended to be used as a handbook and a “guide for society” that could someday inform government AI legislation or regulations.

Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights features a list of five guidelines for protecting people in relation to AI use:

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories
Bulletins