Whistleblower claims Meta helped China develop advanced AI to ‘outcompete American companies': bombshell testimony
Sarah Wynn-Williams, who detailed her experience at Meta in the scathing memoir 'Careless People,' testified that she witnessed Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and other executives lie to Congress and 'repeatedly undermine US national security and betray American values.'
During her opening statement, Wynn-William, Facebook's former director of global public policy, told lawmakers that Meta began providing briefings to the Chinese Communist Party 'as early as 2015' while pursuing 'Project Aldrin' – a top-secret effort to gain access to China's lucrative market.
'These briefings focused on critical emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence – explicit goal being to help China outcompete American companies,' said Wynn-Williams, who worked at the social media giant from 2011 to 2017.
'There's a straight line you can draw from these briefings to the recent revelations that China is developing AI models for military use, relying on Meta's Llama model,' she added.
The hearing before the Senate Judiciary's subcommittee on crime and counterterrorism occurred after Meta obtained an emergency order barring Wynn-Williams from promoting or publicly discussing her allegations against the company. Despite that effort, her book 'Careless People' surged to the top of best-sellers lists.
Wynn-Williams said Meta's AI model Llama 'has contributed significantly to Chinese advances in AI technologies like DeepSeek' – which sparked a US tech selloff earlier this year after releasing a model on par with American rivals that it claims cost less than $6 million to train.
'The greatest trick Mark Zuckerberg ever pulled was wrapping the American flag around himself and calling himself a patriot and saying he didn't offer services in China while he spent the last decade building an $18 billion business there,' Wynn-Williams said.
'And he continues to wrap the flag around himself as we move into the next era of artificial intelligence.'
Meta saw the tech briefings with top-level Chinese officials as part of the 'value proposition' it could offer to get into Beijing's good graces, according to Wynn-Williams.
The whistleblower also detailed her allegation that the company developed a 'censorship system' in 2015 on behalf of the CCP that risked exposing the data of American users and agreed to block accounts in 2017 operated by Guo Wengui, a self-exiled Chinese billionaire and dissident, after facing pressure from China.
Committee chair Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) accused Meta of trying to silence Wynn-Williams – noting that she faces $50,000 in damages 'every time she mentions Facebook in public' as a result of the arbitration ruling.
Meta spokesman Andy Stone said the $50,000 figure is from the separation agreement that Wynn-Williams signed when she left the company in 2017 and applies to any breach of contract, not just non-disparagement.
The company abandoned its efforts to enter the Chinese market in 2019.
Stone said Wynn-Williams' 'testimony is divorced from reality and riddled with false claims.'
'While Mark Zuckerberg himself was public about our interest in offering our services in China and details were widely reported beginning over a decade ago, the fact is this: we do not operate our services in China today,' the spokesman added.
Hawley, who previously told The Post that he would be looking for instances where Facebook had lied under oath to Congress about its China ties, said he is pursuing a 'full-scale investigation into the potential illegal behavior of Facebook.'
At one point during the hearing, Hawley referenced internal conversations in 2017 in which Facebook employees discussed taking down the dissident's account. Months later, a Facebook executive testified to the Senate that action was taken through regular channels.
'Facebook received direct pressure from the Chinese Communist Party and bowed to it and discussed it internally and planned it and then lied about it to Congress,' Hawley said.
Hawley suggested that Zuckerberg misled Congress about the extent of his communication with China — despite Wynn-Williams' assertion that top executives were in regular contact with Beijing. He also signaled that Meta may have violated a 2012 consent decree with the Federal Trade Commission to protect the privacy of user data.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, who also attended the hearing, said Facebook's effort to penalize Wynn-Williams for going public 'can be easily abused to silence her.'
Elsewhere, Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal said it was 'disgusting and the height of hypocrisy for a supposed free speech champion, Mark Zuckerberg and Meta, to use a campaign of threats and intimidation to try to silence you.'
'The American people are going to be pretty outraged that Mark Zuckerberg sold out America to China. That he imperiled our national security for a buck,' Blumenthal added.
In her memoir, Wynn-Williams detailed examples of what she called a 'rotten company culture' reaching as high as Zuckerberg, former COO Sheryl Sandberg and current top policy executive Joel Kaplan.
The memoir alleged that Sandberg once spent $13,000 on lingerie for herself and a young female assistant and later invited Wynn-Williams to 'come to bed' during a long flight home from Europe, among other salacious claims.
As The Post has reported, watchdogs like the Tech Oversight Project have called on Congress to 'drop the hammer' on Meta over its China dealings.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
15 minutes ago
- New York Post
Maximum pressure on Putin is the only way to win a fair deal in Ukraine
Judging by his body language — and by the goals he had initially set for the summit — President Donald Trump could not be satisfied with the outcome of his meeting with Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin, in Alaska. 'I won't be happy if I walk away without some form of a cease-fire,' he told Fox News' Bret Baier hours before arriving in Anchorage. 'There will be very severe consequences,' the president warned days before the summit. Much as he likes to be unpredictable, the US president would do well to the predictable thing and stand by his earlier threats. On Aug. 1, after a major aerial attack on Kyiv, killing 31, he called Russia's actions 'disgusting' and promised fresh sanctions. The summit with Putin, on American soil no less, was a major pivot. Going into the meeting, it was possible to give President Trump the benefit of the doubt. If Putin had agreed to a ceasefire, the gambit would have been worth it. Yet the US president did not get what he asked for. Instead, he was offered flattery, vague promises of future business deals — and likely a delusional lecture on Russian and Ukrainian history, featuring a collection of old maps that Putin had brought with him. Alas, President Trump, just like his envoy Steve Witkoff earlier, seems to have fallen for the Russian bag of tricks, damaging US credibility not unlike the former President Obama's empty rhetoric about 'red lines' in Syria did. 'We don't have to think about [sanctions] right now,' President Trump said after the meeting, which he rated a '10 out of 10.' Worse yet, his shift from demanding ceasefire to seeking a peace agreement echoes the Russian rhetoric about the need to address the conflict's 'root causes.' And if the reporting about President Trump's support for the plan to urge Kyiv to cede unoccupied Ukrainian territory in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in exchange for peace is correct, the administration is about to commit a major blunder, giving Putin for free what he could not take militarily for over a decade. A 'deal' on Russian terms will not bring lasting peace. Because Ukraine matters to the security of Eastern Europe at large, such a deal risks destroying the transatlantic alliance — and also jeopardizing President Trump's minerals deal with Ukraine, which is predicated on Ukraine's control of its own territory. The 'root cause' of the conflict, after all, is not Russia's need for more land, in Donetsk, Luhansk or elsewhere. The root cause is Putin's demented view of his own place in history as the successor to Peter the Great and Stalin: a rebuilder of the Russian empire. Until Putin is disabused of that notion, Ukraine will be in danger. The 'hot' war may temporarily stop but a humiliated, partitioned Ukraine, abandoned by its most important Western partner, will provide a fertile ground for a Russian offensive through other means — through propaganda, bribery of elites, and pitting different Ukrainian factions against each other — until the Kremlin is ready to come back for the rest of the country. It is eminently possible for the United States and our allies to ensure Putin fails. If passed, the bipartisan bill introduced by Senators Graham and Blumenthal would impose a de facto trade embargo on countries buying Russian oil, adding significant pressure on Russia's ailing public finances. Likewise, US military assistance — from precision artillery to air defenses — has given Ukraine a substantial edge on the battlefield. Europeans are eager to finance further transfers of US equipment to Ukraine, making them cost-free to US taxpayers. Finally, there is the lowest of all low-hanging fruit: making sure existing sanctions work. Because Russians constantly try to get around the congressionally mandated sanctions, their effective enforcement resembles a game of whack-a-mole. During the Biden administration, the Treasury Department rolled out over a hundred updates to sanctions and export ban lists to keep the pressure on. The constant fine-tuning has been brought to a halt following President Trump's return to office. Again, it might have been worth giving a more lenient approach a try. Continuing to pursue it in face of Putin's intransigence projects American weakness. In a telling moment during the short joint press conference in Anchorage, Putin expressed hope that 'Kyiv and European capitals won't throw a wrench in the works.' If throwing a wrench means ensuring that the United States stands with its European allies and Ukraine, against Russia, then one very much hopes that President Trump's meeting with Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelensky and key European leaders on Monday achieves exactly that — for America's own sake. Dalibor Rohac is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC. Twitter: @DaliborRohac.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Changing jobs? How to protect your 401(k) from hidden fees
If you're not careful, 401(k) fees can eat away at your retirement savings. Here's what to know. A U.S. Government Accountability Office study reported that 41% of American workers are unaware that 401(k) plans carry fees. Yet these fees can cost a workers thousands (and thousands) of dollars throughout their working years, leaving them with smaller retirement accounts than expected. It's common to lose track of fees when deciding whether to roll your existing 401(k) over or leave it where it is. However, it's essential to know how much you're paying in 401(k) fees and the effect they'll have on your retirement account. Here's what you need to know about 401(k) fees when changing jobs, where to find them, and how to control them. If you're not changing jobs, these tips can help you take control of an existing 401(k) and the amount you're paying out in fees. 401(k) fees add up If you're changing jobs, it's possible that your old employer paid your retirement account fees on your behalf while you worked there. However, once you move on from the job, it's unlikely that the company will continue to cover those fees. If that's the case, your old retirement account may be exposed to fees you know nothing about. Let's say one of the fees you're suddenly responsible for paying is a $4.55 monthly non-employee account maintenance fee. You could lose $17,905 in fees throughout your career. More: Americans believe this is the No. 1 obstacle to saving for retirement Get a copy of your 401(k) fee schedule Whether it's an old account managed by a former employer or an account you're opening with your new employer, you need to know exactly where to find fee information. A fee schedule is typically buried deep in the 401(k) plan document, making it difficult to find. Knowing what to look for is the key. Your employer must provide documents detailing how much you're paying in fees. The fee-specific document is often called the 401(a)(5) fee disclosure, although it may have another name. If you don't have a copy somewhere at home, you can typically find it on your plan's website or through your company's human resources department. What to look for 401(k) plans label their fees with a variety of names. Here are some of the most common names: As you review the Participant Fee Disclosure, note any terms that suggest a fee. How to know if you're paying too much All 401(k) plans charge fees, and you can't avoid paying them. However, there are steps you can take to keep your costs to a minimum. 401(k) fees usually range from 0.5% to 2% or more of plan assets annually. If the fees associated with your retirement account are more than 0.5%, you're probably paying too much. The chunk of money going to fees each year represents money you could have kept in your retirement account and allowed to grow. What you can do to control 401(k) fees While you won't find a prospectus that covers your 401(k) as a whole, you will find individual prospectuses for each fund in your 401(k). A prospectus is a document that gives you detailed information about each investment, including objectives, expected outcomes, risks, and fees. Most plan administrators provide these documents online. If not, contact your 401(k) administrator or HR department. You may not be able to eliminate fees entirely, but here's what you can do to reduce them: 401(k) fees may not actually be "hidden," but they can definitely be a challenge to find. Knowing how to find them could be your superpower, your way of redirecting money once spent on fees toward investments. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies. View the "Social Security secrets" »
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
3 Republican-led states are deploying National Guard troops to DC: What to know
The Republican governors of three states are deploying hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington at the request of the administration of President Donald Trump, who has portrayed the city as awash in crime. The announcements on Aug. 16 of troops from hundreds of miles away in West Virginia, South Carolina and Ohio came a day after DC officials and the Trump administration negotiated a deal to keep Mayor Muriel Bowser's appointed police chief, Pamela Smith, in charge of the police department after DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed a lawsuit to block the federal takeover of the department. Trump, a Republican, said this week he was deploying hundreds of DC National Guard troops to Washington and temporarily taking over the Democratic-led city's police department to curb what he depicted as a crime and homelessness emergency. Justice Department data, however, showed violent crime in 2024 hit a 30-year low in Washington, a self-governing federal district under the jurisdiction of Congress. West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey's office said in a statement he was deploying 300 to 400 National Guard troops to D.C. in "a show of commitment to public safety and regional cooperation." The statement said he also was providing equipment and specialized training. South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster responded to a Pentagon request by announcing that 200 of his state's National Guard troops would be sent. Ohio Governor Mike DeWine said he would send 150 military police members in the coming days, adding none of them were "currently serving as law enforcement officers in the state." After the announcements, Mayor Bowser posted on X: "American soldiers and airmen policing American citizens on American soil is #UnAmerican." Troops to other cities? The National Guard serves as a militia that answers to the governors of the 50 states except when called into federal service. The DC National Guard reports directly to the president. Trump, who has suggested he could take similar actions in other Democratic-controlled cities, has sought to expand the powers of the presidency in his second term, inserting himself into the affairs of major banks, law firms and elite universities. In June, Trump ordered 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles, against the wishes of California's Democratic governor, during protests over mass immigration raids by federal officials. South Carolina's McMaster said his troops would immediately return to South Carolina if needed to respond to a possible hurricane or other natural disaster. Hurricane Erin, now northeast of Puerto Rico, has become a catastrophic Category 5 storm that could bring ocean swells to the U.S. East Coast early next week, the U.S. National Hurricane Center said. National Guard troops often respond to natural disasters and rarely police US civilians. Drew Galang, a spokesperson for West Virginia's Morrisey, said the state's National Guard received the order to send equipment and personnel to D.C. late on Friday and was working to organize the deployment. The White House said on Aug. 16 that DC National Guard members have conducted patrols on foot and in vehicles around the National Mall and Union Station. The White House said the National Guard troops are not making arrests now and that they may be armed. It is not clear how the administration could deploy National Guard troops elsewhere. A federal judge in San Francisco is expected in the coming weeks to issue a ruling on whether Trump violated the law with the Los Angeles deployments. (Reporting by AJ Vicens in Detroit, Richard Cowan in Washington and Bhargav Acharya in Toronto; Editing by Donna Bryson, Matthew Lewis, Paul Simao and William Mallard)
