In a legal filing on Monday (Sept. 29), the parent company of the YouTube streaming platform agreed to pay a $24.5 million settlement to President Donald Trump and other individuals suspended by the platform in the wake of the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The majority of the settlement – $22 million – will go to Trump.
Trump has reportedly asked that the money be directed to the construction of a ballroom at the White House and the Trust for the National Mall. The remaining $2.5 million will go to writer Naomi Wolf and the American Conservative Union, among other plaintiffs. The settlement filing is the latest move by a technology company to appease Trump and to put an end to his extensive litigation against them. Trump has consistently accused these companies of censoring and defaming him.
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, reached a $25 million settlement with Trump in January. The next month, the X platform formerly known as Twitter, agreed to pay $10 million to resolve a similar dispute with Trump dating back to 2021. Media companies have also settled lawsuits with him, notably ABC News with a $15 million settlement to end a defamation case brought against host George Stephanopoulos, and Paramount agreeing to a $16 settlement payment to Trump over the editing of a 60 Minutes interview of former Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. The total of the settlements amounts to $60 million.
In spite of the lawsuits, tech company heads have made inroads with the Trump administration. Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos attended his inauguration in January, and Elon Musk headed the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) for several months.
Trump took to Truth Social to gloat over the news, writing: “This MASSIVE victory proves Big Tech censorship has consequences.” Representatives for YouTube declined to comment. The settlement raises more concerns for observers about how the administration is further using the courts to influence decisions in their favor. “The law was on their side,” University of Richmond School of Law professor Carl Tobias said of the settlements, calling them “buying influence.”
