You Now Have Permission to Stop Pretending

Why Meta’s decision to abolish DEI might be a turning point

Christopher F. Rufo

Last week, Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, formerly Facebook, made a stunning announcement. He was abolishing the company’s DEI programs and discontinuing its relationship with fact-checking organizations, which he admitted had become a form of “censorship.” The left-wing media immediately attacked the decision, accused him of embracing the MAGA agenda, and predicted a dangerous rise in so-called disinformation.

Zuckerberg’s move was carefully calculated and impeccably timed. The November elections, he said, felt like “a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech.” DEI initiatives, especially those related to immigration and gender, had become “disconnected from mainstream conversation”—and untenable.

This is no small about-face. Just four years ago, Zuckerberg spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding left-wing election programs; his role was widely resented by conservatives. And Meta had been at the forefront of any identity-based or left-wing ideological cause.

Not anymore. As part of the rollout for the announcement, Zuckerberg released a video and appeared on the Joe Rogan podcast, which now functions as a confessional for American elites who no longer believe in left-wing orthodoxies. On the podcast, Zuckerberg sounded less like a California progressive than a right-winger, arguing that the culture needed a better balance of “masculine” and “feminine” energies.

Executives at Meta quickly implemented the new policy, issuing pink slips to DEI employees and moving the company’s content-moderation team from California to Texas, in order, in Zuckerberg’s words, to “help alleviate concerns that biased employees are excessively censoring content.”

Zuckerberg was not the first technology executive to make such an announcement, but he is perhaps the most significant. Facebook is one of the largest firms in Silicon Valley and, with Zuckerberg setting the precedent, many smaller companies will likely follow suit.

The most important signal emanating from this decision is not about a particular shift in policy, however, but a general shift in culture. Zuckerberg has never really been an ideologue. He appears more interested in building his company and staying in the good graces of elite society. But like many successful, self-respecting men, he is also independent-minded and has clearly chafed at the cultural constraints DEI placed on his company. So he seized the moment, correctly sensing that the impending inauguration of Donald Trump reduced the risk and increased the payoff of such a change.

Zuckerberg is certainly not a courageous truth-teller. He assented to DEI over the last decade because that was where the elite status signals were pointing. Now, those signals have reversed, like a barometer suddenly dropping, and he is changing course with them and attempting to shift the blame to the outgoing Biden administration, which, he told Rogan, pressured him to implement censorship—a convenient excuse at an even more convenient moment.

But the good news is that, whatever post hoc rationalizations executives might use, DEI and its cultural assumptions suddenly have run into serious resistance. We may be entering a crucial period in which people feel confident enough to express their true beliefs about DEI, which is antithetical to excellence, and stop pretending that they believe in the cultish ideology of “systemic racism” and race-based guilt.

DEI remains deeply embedded in public institutions, of course, but private institutions and corporations have more flexibility and can dispatch with such programs with the stroke of a pen. Zuckerberg has revealed what this might look like at one of the largest companies. Conservatives can commend him for his decision, while remaining wary. “Trust but verify,” as Ronald Reagan used to say, is a good policy all around.

Christopher F. Rufo is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to Christopher Rufo

Up Next

Nanaimo syringe stabbing reignites calls for involuntary care

Don't Miss

Trudeau Must Resign From Board Overseeing Leadership Race and Call for Investigation Into Foreign Interference

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Taxpayers Federation calls on politicians to reject funding for new Ottawa Senators arena

Business / 2 hours ago

Albertans give most on average but Canadian generosity hits lowest point in 20 years

Censorship Industrial Complex / 6 hours ago

Ottawa’s New Hate Law Goes Too Far

Business

Taxpayers Federation calls on politicians to reject funding for new Ottawa Senators arena

Published on December 11, 2025

Todayville

By Noah Jarvis

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on the federal, Ontario and municipal governments to publicly reject subsidizing a new arena for the Ottawa Senators.

“Politicians need to stand up for taxpayers and tell the Ottawa Senators’ lobbyists NO,” said Noah Jarvis, CTF Ontario Director. “Prime Minister Mark Carney, Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Ottawa Mayor Mark Sutcliffe all need to publicly reject giving taxpayers’ money to the owners of the Ottawa Senators.”

The Ottawa Citizen recently reported that “the Ottawa Senators have a team off the ice lobbying federal and provincial governments for funds to help pay the hefty price tag for a new arena.”

The Ottawa Senators said they don’t intend on asking the city of Ottawa for taxpayer dollars. However, the Ottawa Citizen reported that “it’s believed Senators’ owner Michael Andlauer would like a similar structure to the [Calgary] arena deal.” The Calgary arena deal included municipal subsidies.

As of December 2024, the Ottawa Senators were worth just under $1.2 billion, according to Forbes.

Meanwhile, both the federal and Ontario governments are deep in debt. The federal debt will reach $1.35 trillion by the end of the year. The Ontario government is $459 billion in debt. The city of Ottawa is proposing a 3.75 per cent property tax increase in 2026.

“Governments are up to their eyeballs in debt and taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to fund a brand-new fancy arena for a professional sports team,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “If the owners of the Ottawa Senators want to build a fancy new arena, then they should be forced to fund it with ticket sales not tax hikes.”

Business

Albertans give most on average but Canadian generosity hits lowest point in 20 years

Published on December 11, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

The number of Canadians donating to charity—as a percentage of all tax filers—is at the lowest point in 20 years, finds a new study published by the
Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“The holiday season is a time to reflect on charitable giving, and the data shows Canadians are consistently less charitable every year, which means charities face greater challenges to secure resources to help those in need,” said Jake Fuss, director of Fiscal Studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of Generosity in Canada: The 2025 Generosity Index.

The study finds that the percentage of Canadian tax filers donating to charity during the 2023 tax year—just 16.8 per cent—is the lowest proportion of Canadians donating since at least 2003. Canadians’ generosity peaked at 25.4 per cent of tax-filers donating in 2004, before declining in subsequent years.

Nationally, the total amount donated to charity by Canadian tax filers has also fallen from 0.55 per cent of income in 2013 to 0.52 per cent of income in 2023.

The study finds that Manitoba had the highest percentage of tax filers that donated to charity among the provinces (18.7 per cent) during the 2023 tax year while New Brunswick had the lowest (14.4 per cent).

Likewise, Manitoba also donated the highest percentage of its aggregate income to charity among the provinces (0.71 per cent) while Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador donated the lowest (both 0.27 per cent).

“A smaller proportion of Canadians are donating to registered charities than what we saw in previous decades, and those who are donating are donating less,” said Fuss.

“This decline in generosity in Canada undoubtedly limits the ability of Canadian charities to improve the quality of life in their communities and beyond,” said Grady Munro, policy analyst and co-author.

Generosity of Canadian provinces and territories

Ranking (2025) % of tax filers who claiming donations Average of all charitable donations % of aggregate income donated

Manitoba 18.7 $2,855 0.71
Ontario 17.2 $2,816 0.58
Quebec 17.1 $1,194 0.27
Alberta 17.0 $3,622 0.68
Prince Edward Island 16.6 $1,936 0.45
Saskatchewan 16.4 $2,597 0.52
British Columbia 15.9 $3,299 0.61
Nova Scotia 15.3 $1,893 0.40
Newfoundland and Labrador 15.0 $1,333 0.27
New Brunswick 14.4 $2,076 0.44
Yukon 14.1 $2,180 0.27
Northwest Territories 10.2 $2,540 0.20
Nunavut 5.1 $2,884 0.15

NOTE: Table based on 2023 tax year, the most recent year of comparable data in Canada

Generosity in Canada: The 2025 Generosity Index

Manitoba had the highest percentage of tax filers that donated to charity among the provinces (18.7%) during the 2023 tax year while New Brunswick had the lowest (14.4%).
Manitoba also donated the highest percentage of its aggregate income to charity among the provinces (0.71%) while Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador donated the lowest (both 0.27%).
Nationally, the percentage of Canadian tax filers donating to charity has fallen over the last decade from 21.9% in 2013 to 16.8% in 2023.
The percentage of aggregate income donated to charity by Canadian tax filers has also decreased from 0.55% in 2013 to 0.52% in 2023.
This decline in generosity in Canada undoubtedly limits the ability of Canadian charities to improve the quality of life in their communities and beyond.