YouTube will no longer remove content on its platform that says widespread voter fraud happened during the 2020 election and other U.S. elections in a move that will likely have consequences for the 2024 presidential campaign, according to a report from Axios.

The video platform’s policy reversal comes as the 2024 presidential primaries heat up. Former President Donald Trump, who leads Republican primary polling, continues to challenge the results of the 2020 election, claiming widespread voter fraud took the election away from him and put President Joe Biden in the White House.

“Two years, tens of thousands of video removals, and one election cycle later, we recognized it was time to reevaluate the effects of this policy in today’s changed landscape,” YouTube said in a statement, according to Axios. “With that in mind, and with 2024 campaigns well underway, we will stop removing content that advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches occurred in the 2020 and other past US Presidential elections.”

YouTube said it “carefully deliberated” before making the surprising change to its policy, but did not provide specific details on what caused the Big Tech company to reverse course. The new policy takes effect on Friday.

In March, YouTube reversed course on another decision, allowing Trump back onto the platform after banning him following the January 6 riot on Capitol Hill. On that day, the former president encouraged lawmakers and his vice president to refuse the certification of the 2020 election.

The Republican Party is divided on Trump’s denial of the 2020 election results, with many arguing that it’s time to move on from the past and focus on how the party can win future elections. Trump has been heavily criticized by Republicans for continuing to deny his presidential election loss, with some GOP strategists blaming the former president for the Republican Party’s underwhelming performance in the 2022 midterm elections. The former president, however, maintains a large base of loyal supporters who defend his claims of a stolen election.

YouTube, which was bought by Google in 2006, said it will continue to stifle content it deems “election misinformation,” which includes videos “aiming to mislead voters about the time, place, means, or eligibility requirements for voting; false claims that could materially discourage voting, including those disputing the validity of voting by mail; and content that encourages others to interfere with democratic processes.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP

The company transitioned leadership after Susan Wojcicki announced in February that she would step down from her role as chief executive. Neal Mohan, who was formerly YouTube’s chief product officer, stepped into the CEO position. Mohan has said he wants “robust debate” on the platform, but he has also defended removing videos that “maliciously insult someone.”

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that a free speech group lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of Virginia Tech’s bias policies.

In a 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Virginia Tech’s Bias Intervention and Response Team (BIRT) and Informational Activities Policy (IAP), ruling against Speech First, a civil rights organization dedicated to protecting college students’ free speech rights.

“Here, Speech First has failed to demonstrate that a single one of the district court’s numerous findings of fact is clearly erroneous,” wrote Senior Judge Diana Gribbon Motz for the majority. “Speech First offers only speculation in support of its argument that it has suffered an injury in fact.”

BIRT allows individuals to report students for any “expression made against a person or group” that the university considers motivated by bias. Speech First argued that Virginia Tech, through BIRT, created an “elaborate bureaucratic regime that burdens the exercise of free speech,” according to the court opinion.

The dissent, written by Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson, focused on the “real-world consequences” of the court’s decision.  Wilkinson argued that the BIRT’s reporting system has a “chilling effect” on the First Amendment and that due to the policy, a “reasonable student” would “keep her head down, sit silently, and avoid the potential fallout” in class when controversial topics are discussed.

The court majority denied this claim, arguing that because the meetings initiated by the BIRT were voluntary, the reporting system could not be regarded as punishing free speech. Further, Motz wrote, “Just as universities may legitimately strive to promote intellectual curiosity, so too they may legitimately strive to promote civility and a sense of belonging among the student body. That is what Virginia Tech’s Bias Policy seeks to achieve.”

IAP is a regulation on who can hand out flyers and leaflets on campus, requiring approval from the Student Engagement and Campus Life Office. For a student’s leafleting activities to be approved, he or she must be sponsored by one of the university’s registered student organizations.

Speech First challenged the IAP, arguing the policy was akin to “prior restraint” policies struck down by courts in the past and a speaker-based restriction on speech in violation of the First Amendment. The majority disagreed, writing that the IAP is a “reasonable” regulation, motivated not by a desire to regulate speech but a system that “ensures fair and equitable access” to [Virginia Tech’s] finite resources.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) — who filed an amicus brief supporting Speech First — gives Virginia Tech a “yellow” free speech rating, meaning that the university has “at least one ambiguous policy that too easily encourages administrative abuse and arbitrary application.” Among these policies are Virginia Tech’s “Discriminatory Harassment,” “Bias-Reporting,” “Offenses Against People,” and “Usage and Event Approval” policies, among others.

The two judges ruling in favor of the university — Senior Judge Motz and Judge Albert Diaz — were appointed by Democrats (President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama, respectively), while the dissenting judge — Judge Wilkinson — was nominated by Republican President Ronald Reagan.