YouTube, the world’s largest video-sharing platform, has agreed to pay $24.5 million to settle a lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump and several other plaintiffs after Trump’s account was suspended in the aftermath of the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The settlement, filed in federal court on September 29, 2025, marks the end of a years-long legal battle that has captured national attention and signals a remarkable shift in the relationship between Big Tech and the Trump administration.
According to court documents cited by ABC News, the bulk of the settlement—$22 million—will support the construction of a new White House State Ballroom, with the funds managed by the tax-exempt Trust for the National Mall. The remaining $2.5 million will be distributed among other plaintiffs in the case, including the American Conservative Union, author Naomi Wolf, and several prominent conservative figures. The agreement comes with a stipulation: “This Notice of Settlement and Stipulation of Dismissal shall not constitute an admission of liability or fault on the part of the Defendants or their agents, servants, or employees, and is entered into by all Parties for the sole purpose of compromising disputed claims and avoiding the expenses and risks of further litigation,” the filing states.
YouTube suspended Trump’s channel shortly after the January 6 riot, citing concerns that his uploaded video violated the platform’s policy against inciting violence. The suspension, which initially blocked Trump from uploading new content, was one of several actions taken by major social media companies at the time. Trump responded by suing YouTube in October 2021, arguing that the ban amounted to wrongful censorship and a violation of his right to free speech. Other plaintiffs joined the suit, including the American Conservative Union and Naomi Wolf, who herself had been suspended from multiple social media platforms for spreading controversial views about COVID-19 vaccines (NPR).
After more than two years, YouTube restored Trump’s channel in 2023, citing the importance of allowing voters to “hear equally from major national candidates in the run-up to an election.” The move was part of a broader trend among social media companies to reinstate accounts that had been banned for violating now-defunct rules, particularly those targeting misinformation about the 2020 election and COVID-19. In late September 2025, YouTube announced it would reinstate additional accounts previously banned for repeated misinformation, stating that it “values conservative voices on its platform and recognizes that these creators have extensive reach and play an important role in civic discourse” (CNN).
The settlement with YouTube is just the latest in a series of high-profile agreements between Trump and major tech and media companies. In January, Meta—parent company of Facebook and Instagram—agreed to pay $25 million to settle a similar lawsuit, directing $22 million to Trump’s presidential library and $3 million to cover legal fees. In February, X (formerly known as Twitter) settled with Trump for about $10 million (The Wall Street Journal). Media giants have also come to terms with Trump in recent months: Paramount Global paid $16 million to resolve a dispute over the editing of a CBS “60 Minutes” interview, and ABC News agreed to a $15 million settlement in a defamation case involving anchor George Stephanopoulos.
Trump, never one to shy away from the spotlight, celebrated the YouTube settlement on his social media platform Truth Social, declaring, “This MASSIVE victory proves Big Tech censorship has consequences.” His legal team echoed this sentiment, with attorney John Coale telling The New York Times, “If he hadn’t been re-elected, we’d be in court forever. Then the president gets re-elected and things look a lot better.” Coale also noted that recent changes to YouTube’s content moderation policies were discussed during settlement talks, though he insisted they were not a condition of the agreement: “It’s better than it was back then. There’s no government now pushing them to do anything, and I think that will stay in the future, no matter who wins the White House.”
Legal experts, however, have raised questions about the merit of Trump’s lawsuits. As NPR reports, First Amendment protections generally apply to government censorship, not actions taken by private companies. Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, called the YouTube settlement “not a sign of any legal merit,” instead describing it as “straight influence-peddling.” Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, echoed this view, suggesting that the settlements were akin to “buying influence.” He added, “The companies do seem like they are currying favor with the presidential administration.”
The financial impact of the settlement on YouTube’s parent company, Alphabet, is relatively small. As The New York Times notes, Alphabet reported $9.7 billion in revenue from YouTube ads in the second quarter of 2025 alone. Still, the public nature of the settlement and the involvement of high-profile figures such as Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai and Google co-founder Sergey Brin—both of whom attended a recent White House dinner focused on artificial intelligence—reflect a thaw in relations between Silicon Valley and the Trump administration.
The construction of the new White House State Ballroom, which Trump has touted as accommodating up to 900 people at an estimated cost of $200 million, is just one of several projects funded by recent settlements. The Trust for the National Mall, a nonprofit dedicated to restoring and preserving the National Mall, will manage the funds. Trump’s legal and political battles, meanwhile, are far from over. In addition to his ongoing disputes with media companies such as The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times—the latter of which was recently dismissed but may be refiled—the former president has ramped up pressure campaigns against law firms, universities, and media critics, including late-night host Jimmy Kimmel.
For their part, YouTube and its parent company have declined to comment publicly on the settlement, instead referring inquiries to the court documents. The platform’s recent decision to relax content moderation policies, especially around political speech and misinformation, comes as Republican lawmakers have intensified investigations into whether social media companies restricted speech at the behest of the previous administration. According to The New York Times, these policy shifts were discussed during settlement talks but were not a formal part of the agreement.
As the dust settles on this chapter of the ongoing struggle between political power and digital platforms, one thing is clear: the relationship between Big Tech and the White House is more complex—and more consequential—than ever before. The series of settlements, policy reversals, and public statements from all sides suggest that the debate over free speech, censorship, and the power of social media is far from resolved.
