Introduction

In 2025 Meta rolled back several key content‑moderation safeguards on Facebook, arguing that the changes would better protect free speech. A new analysis by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) shows that, in the six months following those adjustments, explicit threats and harassment directed at members of Congress escalated dramatically.

Rising Violence and Harassment

The CCDH report examined nearly eight million comments aimed at 100 lawmakers. It found that violent threats, including calls for murder, quadrupled after the policy shift. Harassment rose by more than 100 percent, while racist and gender‑based abuse also increased sharply. One example cited a comment that former President Donald Trump “deserves a bullet through his head.”

These findings echo broader concerns about political safety in recent years. Incidents such as the fatal shooting of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman and the disruption of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner illustrate a climate in which elected officials face heightened physical danger.

Meta’s Response and Accountability

Meta responded that it regularly publishes public reports on “violating content” and maintains that the prevalence of hateful conduct did not rise during 2025. The company also noted that it had not received the CCDH report in advance, limiting its ability to comment on specific claims.

Critics argue that when platforms scale back enforcement of rules against threats, hate, and harassment, they risk normalizing intimidation of public officials. Senators and advocacy groups have called the surge “deeply concerning,” emphasizing the need for robust moderation to protect democratic institutions.

Policy Changes Beyond Moderation

In addition to easing threat‑related safeguards, Meta eliminated its network of U.S. fact‑checkers in early 2025, shifting verification responsibilities to ordinary users through the “Community Notes” system. This move was perceived as an effort to align with the new administration’s preference for less centralized fact‑checking, despite warnings from the International Fact‑Checking Network about potential harms if similar policy shifts are applied globally.

The company also relaxed speech restrictions surrounding gender and sexual identity topics, prompting further criticism from advocacy groups concerned about the spread of misinformation and hate.

Implications for Free Speech and Safety

Balancing free expression with the protection of public officials is a complex challenge. While open discourse is essential, the CCDH data demonstrates that unchecked hostile content can embolden extremist behavior and threaten the safety of elected representatives. Maintaining strong, transparent moderation policies is vital for preserving both democratic dialogue and personal security.

Conclusion

The surge in threats to U.S. lawmakers after Meta’s 2025 moderation changes underscores the tangible impact of platform policies on political safety. As digital spaces continue to shape public conversation, responsible moderation that curbs hate and intimidation while upholding free speech remains a critical component of a healthy democracy.