After suspending his account, a financial settlement ends Trump’s dispute with YouTube

The YouTube platform, which is affiliated with the “Alphabet” company, which owns Google, reached a judicial settlement with US President Donald Trump, to pay 24.5 million dollars, to end a lawsuit filed after his account was suspended after the events of the Congress building in January 2021.

According to the judicial documents issued on Monday, YouTube will pay 22 million dollars to the “Trust for the National Mall” fund, a non -profit organization that works to support the project to build a celebration hall at the White House at a cost of approximately $ 200 million, Trump is seeking to complete it before the end of his second term in January 2029 if he won the upcoming elections. As for the remaining amount, it will be distributed on other parties in the case, including the “Conservative American Union” that sponsors the conservative political work conference (CPAC), as well as American writer Naomi Wolf.

The case came as part of a series of lawsuits filed by Trump in July 2021 against technology giants: Twitter (whose name is “X”), Facebook of the “Meta” group, and YouTube, in addition to the CEOs of these companies, accusing them of “silence illegally conservative voices.”

Mita had ended its conflict with Trump earlier this year by paying $ 25 million, most of which were allocated to finance his presidential library in Miami, while X paid $ 10 million in February. With the last YouTube step, Google is the last major company to fold the file of issues related to the suspension of Trump’s accounts on its platforms.

It is noteworthy that the Trump account on YouTube was not completely closed in 2021, but rather was limited to preventing him from downloading new clips, before being re -activated in 2023. According to the settlement, YouTube did not recognize any mistake, nor will changes to its policies or products.

These developments restored the debate over the limits of publishing policies on digital platforms, and about the balance between freedom of expression and the right of technological companies to impose the criteria of use, a file that still raises a wide division in American political and legal circles.