🔴 Website 👉 https://u-s-news.com/
Telegram 👉 https://t.me/usnewscom_channel
This story first broke last week and I haven’t seen hardly anyone cover it.
Gee, I wonder why….
Oh that’s right! Facebook and Meta control a large portion of all online media and they’ve almost certainly killed the story. Heck, I bet the links don’t even work if you try to post to Facebook.
And that is kind of the entire point of this brand new truly-bombshell testimony from whistleblower Sarah Wynn-Williams.
Let me bring you up to speed if you haven’t seen this yet….
Let’s start with this short clip from Williams’ testimony to Congress detailing how Facebook built custom censorship tools for the Chinese Communist Party:
Holy Shit – “Mark Zuckerberg pledged himself a Free Speech Champion”
“I witnessed META work hand in glove with The Chinese Communist Party – custom built Censorship Tools”
META Whistleblower leaves Zuck looking like the American Traitor he is. Facebook were also obviously… pic.twitter.com/9wwPT4sqMS
— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) April 9, 2025
Holy Shit – “Mark Zuckerberg pledged himself a Free Speech Champion”Gee, how nice of Mark to do that for his masters!
Meanwhile, you would have to be extremely naïve to think he wouldn’t turn those tools against the American Public as well.
Against people like me and the TWO pro-Trump Facebook Pages I’ve had over the last 10 years that both got deleted overnight with no warning of any kind. Just deleted. Poof. Gone!
Oh, and each time it was right before an election (2020 and 2024) which means it was silencing my free speech and my political speech and the rights of 1.5 million Americans to read and engage with that free political speech.
Did that ultimately have an impact on the election when 1.5 million people x2 suddenly did not get the Trump news they were relying on?
You’d have to be extremely naïve to think it didn’t.
Williams calls this Treason and it’s hard to disagree:
If what this whistleblower says is true, then Mark Zuckerberg needs to be charged with treason for profiting from assisting China in the development of military A.I., as well as allowing the Chinese Communist Party access to the private conversations of Facebook users. pic.twitter.com/zX0Ahw4mYS
— Possum Reviews (@ReviewsPossum) April 12, 2025
I mean, if this isn’t Treason then what is?
SEN. HAWLEY: “Did Facebook brief members of the CCP on Artificial Intelligence to your knowledge?”
META WHISTLEBLOWER: “Yes Senator.”
Insane.
pic.twitter.com/mZSTol2zY8— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) April 10, 2025
Here’s a summary of everything she testified to:
On April 9, 2025, Sarah Wynn-Williams, a former Facebook executive and Director of Global Public Policy, testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism in Washington, D.C.
Her testimony focused on allegations against Meta, Facebook’s parent company, accusing it of undermining U.S. national security and engaging in questionable collaborations with the Chinese government.
Here’s a breakdown of what she said, including some of the standout “bombshells”:
She claimed that Meta worked “hand in glove” with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to censor content on its platforms, providing custom-built censorship tools to silence critics of the CCP.
This included a “virality counter” that flagged posts exceeding 10,000 views for review by a “chief editor,” a mechanism she said was used not just in mainland China but also in Hong Kong and Taiwan.
This was described as an “Orwellian” approach by Senator Richard Blumenthal, highlighting its potential to suppress free speech.
Wynn-Williams alleged that Meta contributed to China’s advancements in artificial intelligence, specifically claiming that Meta’s AI model, Llama, was used to help develop China’s DeepSeek technology, which she suggested has military applications.
She framed this as part of a broader “high-stakes AI arms race” against China, accusing Meta executives of briefing the CCP on U.S. AI efforts and emerging technologies to secure favor and build an $18 billion business in China.
She accused Meta executives, including Mark Zuckerberg, of lying to employees, shareholders, Congress, and the American public about their dealings with China.
She said these actions were kept secret to cozy up to Beijing, compromising American values and national security.
This included providing the CCP with access to Meta user data, potentially including that of American users, which she described as “illegal and dangerous.”
Another striking claim was that Meta targeted advertisements at teenagers based on their emotional states.
For example, she testified that if a teen girl deleted a selfie, Meta might infer she was feeling insecure and push beauty product ads, or target weight loss ads at teens with body image concerns—practices she said exploited vulnerable young users.
Wynn-Williams also highlighted Meta’s attempts to silence her.
She testified despite an arbitrator’s gag order tied to a non-disparagement clause from her time at Meta, which she said was so broad it initially seemed to bar her from speaking to Congress.
She framed her appearance as defiance against a company whose CEO, Zuckerberg, claims to champion free speech, calling it a fight to reveal the truth to the American people.
These claims sparked bipartisan outrage among senators, with figures like Josh Hawley accusing Meta of stopping at “absolutely nothing” to prevent her testimony.
Meta, in response, has consistently denied her allegations, with spokespeople calling her testimony “divorced from reality and riddled with false claims.”
They emphasized that while they explored operating in China years ago, they do not currently offer services there, and they dismissed her portrayal of their AI and data practices.
The bombshells here—alleged censorship tools for China, AI collaboration with military implications, user data sharing, and emotional targeting of teens—paint a picture of a company prioritizing profit over ethics, according to Wynn-Williams.
Whether these hold up under scrutiny remains debated, as Meta’s rebuttals suggest a starkly different narrative, but her testimony has undeniably reignited scrutiny of the tech giant’s foreign ties and practices.
And you can watch the entire 10 minute testimony right here:
So….does it rise to the level of Treason?
I asked Grok and here’s what it told me:
To determine whether Sarah Wynn-Williams’ allegations against Meta (Facebook’s parent company), if true, could be considered treason against the United States, we need to examine the legal definition of treason and how her claims align with it. Treason is a narrowly defined and rarely prosecuted crime under U.S. law, so let’s break this down systematically.
Legal Definition of Treason
Under Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, treason is defined as:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
This is codified in 18 U.S.C. § 2381, which states:
“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
Key elements include:
Owing allegiance: Typically applies to U.S. citizens or entities incorporated in the U.S., like Meta.
Levying war: Direct acts of armed rebellion or warfare against the U.S.
Adhering to enemies, giving aid and comfort: Providing material support or assistance to a formally recognized enemy of the U.S., with intent to betray the nation. An “enemy” is generally understood as a nation or group the U.S. is in a state of declared war or open hostilities with (e.g., via congressional declaration or clear armed conflict).
Treason requires specific intent to betray the United States, and the Constitution mandates that conviction requires either two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court. Courts have historically interpreted treason narrowly to avoid misuse against political or ideological opponents.
Sarah Wynn-Williams’ Allegations
As outlined previously, Wynn-Williams testified on April 9, 2025, before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, alleging that Meta:
Collaborated with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to censor content, including providing tools like a “virality counter” to suppress critics in China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.
Contributed to China’s AI advancements by allowing its Llama AI model to aid development of China’s DeepSeek, potentially with military applications.
Shared Meta user data, possibly including American users’ data, with the CCP, described as “illegal and dangerous.”
Lied to Congress, shareholders, and the public about its China dealings to prioritize profits.
These allegations, if true, suggest serious ethical breaches, potential violations of national security laws, and possible crimes like espionage or unauthorized data sharing. But do they meet the threshold for treason?
Analysis: Do the Allegations Constitute Treason?
Owing Allegiance:
Meta, as a U.S.-based corporation, owes allegiance to the United States under U.S. law. Corporate entities can theoretically be charged with treason if their actions meet the criteria, though this is rare and typically involves individuals (e.g., executives) being prosecuted for acts on behalf of the corporation.
This element is likely satisfied, as Meta is a U.S. entity, and its executives, like Mark Zuckerberg, are U.S. citizens.
Levying War:
None of Wynn-Williams’ allegations suggest Meta engaged in armed rebellion or direct warfare against the U.S. Censoring content, sharing AI tech, or providing user data, even if harmful, does not equate to “levying war” under legal precedent (e.g., Ex parte Bollman, 1807, which clarified that levying war requires actual military action).
This element is not met.
Adhering to Enemies, Giving Aid and Comfort:
Is China an “enemy”? The U.S. and China are geopolitical rivals with significant tensions (e.g., trade disputes, cyber conflicts, and military posturing). However, as of April 17, 2025, the U.S. is not in a state of declared war or open hostilities with China. Courts have historically required an “enemy” to be a state or group with which the U.S. is in active conflict (e.g., United States v. Burr, 1807; Cramer v. United States, 1945). China’s status as a rival, even one engaged in cyberattacks or espionage, does not clearly meet this threshold absent formal hostilities.
Aid and comfort: If Meta provided censorship tools, AI technology, or user data to the CCP, these could be seen as assisting a foreign government. For example:
Sharing AI tech with potential military applications could strengthen China’s capabilities, arguably harming U.S. interests.
Providing American user data could enable espionage or surveillance, compromising national security.
Censoring content at CCP’s behest could align with China’s strategic goals, indirectly undermining U.S. values like free speech.
However, “aid and comfort” requires intent to betray the U.S. and assist an enemy. Wynn-Williams alleges Meta’s motive was profit-driven (to secure an $18 billion business in China), not ideological alignment with the CCP or intent to harm the U.S. Courts have emphasized that intent matters (Cramer v. United States), and commercial motives may weaken a treason case unless explicitly tied to betrayal.
Precedent:
In Haupt v. United States (1947), aiding a German saboteur during WWII was deemed treasonous because Germany was a declared enemy. In contrast, United States v. Rosenberg (1953) involved espionage for the Soviet Union, but treason was not charged because the U.S. was not at war with the USSR. China’s current status aligns more with the latter, suggesting espionage or other laws (e.g., CFIUS violations, FARA) might apply instead of treason.
Specific Intent and Overt Acts:
Treason requires proof of intent to betray the U.S., not just reckless or harmful actions. Wynn-Williams’ claim that Meta lied to Congress and prioritized profits suggests deception but not necessarily treasonous intent. For example, developing AI for commercial gain, even if it benefits China, lacks the deliberate aim of “adhering to enemies” unless Meta knowingly aimed to harm U.S. security.
Overt acts (e.g., sharing data or AI tech) could be documented, but the two-witness requirement or confession in court sets a high bar. Wynn-Williams’ testimony alone, even if corroborated by documents, might not suffice without additional witnesses to specific acts.
Could Other Laws Apply?
If true, Meta’s actions could violate other U.S. laws, which are more likely to be pursued:
Espionage (18 U.S.C. § 793-794): Sharing user data or AI tech with China, especially if it aids military capabilities.
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized data sharing or hacking-related activities.
Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA): Acting as an agent of the CCP without registering.
Export Control Laws: Sharing AI technology like Llama with China could violate export restrictions.
False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001): Lying to Congress could lead to perjury or obstruction charges.
These laws have lower thresholds than treason and don’t require a state of war or enemy status, making them more practical for prosecution.
Why Treason Is Unlikely
No Declared Enemy: China is not a legal “enemy” under treason law, as there’s no state of war or open hostilities. (United States v. Greathouse, 1863).
Intent: Meta’s alleged profit motive undermines the specific intent to betray required for treason (Cramer v. United States).
Corporate Context: Treason is rarely applied to corporations. Even individual executives face a high legal bar.
Political and Practical Barriers: Treason is politically charged and rarely prosecuted. The last U.S. conviction was in 1952 (United States v. Kawakita).
Bombshell Impact, But Not Treason
Wynn-Williams’ allegations, if proven, are bombshells with serious implications:
National Security: Sharing AI tech or user data with China could enhance its military or surveillance capabilities.
Public Trust: Lying to Congress and exploiting user data erodes trust in Meta.
Global Influence: Censoring content for the CCP could embolden authoritarian regimes.
However, these actions, while potentially illegal and damaging, don’t meet the constitutional or statutory threshold for treason. They’re better addressed through laws targeting espionage, data privacy, or corporate accountability.
Conclusion
If Sarah Wynn-Williams’ allegations are true, Meta’s actions could constitute serious crimes, including espionage, data misuse, or violations of export controls, but they would not legally qualify as treason against the United States. The absence of a declared war with China, lack of clear intent to betray, and the high bar for treason (e.g., two witnesses) make it an unlikely charge.
Instead, the allegations point to other legal and ethical violations that could still carry significant consequences for Meta, such as fines, sanctions, or criminal charges against executives. The “bombshell” nature of her claims lies in their potential to reshape perceptions of Meta’s role in global tech and security, but treason is a stretch under current law.
Now I want to end with a recent interview I did with Patty Greer.
Patty was a guest on my show The Daily Truth Report, and we went deep into this, discussing my censorship from Facebook and Patty’s similar story.
Please enjoy this one:
Share!
This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport.