In 2008, Facebook followed the lead of countless companies before it, establishing an international headquarters in Ireland in order to skirt relatively higher U.S. corporate tax rates. In doing so, the company also ensured that international Facebook users—those outside the U.S. and Canada—would be subject to European Union rules. Before the E.U. got serious about protecting user privacy, this wasn’t such a bad deal; regulations abroad were no more severe than regulations in the States. But now that strict General Data Protection Regulation (G.D.P.R.) rules are set to take effect late next month, Reuters reports Facebook is planning to argue that G.D.P.R. rules should apply solely to its European users, meaning they would not effect its 1.5 billion members in Africa, Asia, Australia, and Latin America.

Essentially relocating 1.5 billion users’ rights from Dublin to Delaware would drastically reduce Facebook’s risk of exposure under G.D.P.R., which will let European regulators fine companies that collect personal data without their users’ consent; ultimately, the change would affect the majority—more than 70 percent—of Facebook’s 2-billion-person user network. The 1.5 billion people impacted by the move would be governed by the U.S.’s more lenient privacy laws, and would no longer be able to file complaints with Ireland’s Data Protection Commissioner. Facebook confirmed the move but downplayed its importance, saying in a statement, “We apply the same privacy protections everywhere, regardless of whether your agreement is with Facebook Inc. or Facebook Ireland.”

Mark Zuckerberg himself, however, has cast some doubt on that claim. When Zuckerberg was asked by Congress whether Facebook would extend the same protections to Americans that Europeans will receive under G.D.P.R., he replied that yes, it would. But when pressed, his reply was less concrete: “The G.D.P.R. has a bunch of different important pieces,” he told Rep. Janice Schakowsky, who asked whether “exactly the protections that are guaranteed, not just the controls but all the rights required under the General Data Protection Regulations, will be applied to Americans as well?” He added, “One is offering controls . . . that we’re doing. The second is around pushing for affirmative consent and putting a control in front of people that walks people through their choices. We’re going to do that, too. . . . We’re going to put a tool at the top of people’s apps that walks them through their settings—” Schakowsky interrupted him, saying, “It sounds like it will not be exact,” but ran out of time to push the issue further. In an interview with Reuters earlier in April, Zuckerberg said E.U. privacy laws would be applied globally “in spirit.”

Meanwhile, Facebook has also begun to make inroads with regulation-averse conservatives. “I know it’s not lost on anyone in the free-market community that with G.D.P.R. on the way in Europe and the rapidly changing discussions here in Washington, there’s an increased chance Washington will rush to regulate, with privacy concerns at the top of the radar,” Lori Moylan, a Facebook public policy manager, wrote in an e-mail to right-wing factions shortly before Zuck’s testimony. And while it’s unclear whether conservatives, who generally believe that a Zuckerbergian Deep State is tasked with policing their speech on the platform, will align themselves with the company, Facebook’s maneuvers both at home and abroad attest to its commitment to fighting external regulation, even while it pretends otherwise.