Simply over two years after Donald J. Trump’s accounts have been suspended from Fb and Instagram, Meta, the proprietor of the platforms, mentioned on Wednesday that it could reinstate the previous president’s entry to the social media companies.

Mr. Trump, who had probably the most adopted account on Fb when he was barred, will “within the coming weeks” regain entry to his accounts that collectively had a whole lot of hundreds of thousands of followers, Meta mentioned. In November, Mr. Trump’s account was additionally reinstated on Twitter, which had barred him since January 2021, collectively giving the previous president extra of a megaphone as he campaigns for the White Home in 2024.

Meta suspended Mr. Trump from its platforms on Jan. 7, 2021, the day after a whole lot of individuals stormed the Capitol in his identify, saying his posts ran the danger of inciting extra violence. Mr. Trump’s accounts on different mainstream social media companies, together with YouTube and Twitter, have been additionally eliminated that week.

However Meta, which critics have accused of censoring Mr. Trump and different conservative voices, mentioned on Wednesday it had determined to reverse the bans as a result of it had decided that the danger to public security had “sufficiently receded” since January 2021. The corporate added that it could add guardrails to “deter repeat offenses” sooner or later.

“The general public ought to be capable of hear what their politicians are saying — the great, the unhealthy and the ugly — in order that they will make knowledgeable decisions on the poll field,” mentioned Nick Clegg, Meta’s president of worldwide affairs. “However that doesn’t imply there are not any limits to what folks can say on our platform.”

In a put up on the right-wing social community Reality Social, Mr. Trump mentioned a “deplatforming” ought to “by no means once more occur to a sitting President, or anyone else who is just not deserving retribution!”

Meta has been on the middle of a debate over free speech on-line and who ought to have the ability to determine what could be posted and what must be eliminated. The banning of Mr. Trump’s accounts was a stark demonstration of the clout of social media platforms and whether or not they have an excessive amount of management and affect over public discourse on-line.

The approaching reinstatement of Mr. Trump’s Fb and Instagram accounts was instantly criticized by Democratic lawmakers and misinformation specialists, who mentioned the transfer would permit the previous president to unfold divisive and inflammatory posts.

“The Capitol group remains to be selecting up the items from the Jan. 6 riot that Trump ignited, and now he’s returning to the digital scene of the crime,” Consultant Jan Schakowsky, a chief deputy whip and a Democrat of Illinois, mentioned in an e mail assertion.

However Anthony D. Romero, government director of the American Civil Liberties Union, mentioned Meta’s choice was “the best name” as a result of Mr. Trump is a number one political determine and the general public is fascinated about listening to him communicate. “Whereas the federal government can not drive platforms to hold sure speech, that doesn’t imply the biggest platforms ought to interact in political censorship,” Mr. Romero mentioned.

It’s unclear whether or not Mr. Trump, who mentioned in November that he was looking for the White Home once more in 2024, will once more develop into energetic on Fb and Instagram. He began Reality Social, wherein he has a monetary stake and the place he’s obligated to make his posts obtainable completely for six hours earlier than he can share them on different websites, in response to a submitting with the Securities and Trade Fee. Mr. Trump can put up to any website instantly if the messages pertain to political messaging, fund-raising or get-out-the-vote initiatives.

Mr. Trump has not posted on Twitter for the reason that platform reinstated him in November. Reality Social is at present the one social community on which Mr. Trump is energetic. YouTube has not mentioned whether or not it should permit the previous president again on the platform.

Reality Social and YouTube didn’t instantly reply to requests for remark.

In a put up on Meta’s weblog on Wednesday, Mr. Clegg mentioned the corporate’s executives most well-liked to err on the facet of permitting extra speech throughout Fb and Instagram slightly than much less, even when the posts have been “distasteful or factually flawed.”

However Meta is taking steps to forestall future incidents, Mr. Clegg mentioned. Mr. Trump might be topic to a different ban for “between one month and two years, relying on the severity of the violation,” Mr. Clegg mentioned.

Meta is contemplating placing different measures in place towards those that could not explicitly violate its guidelines however who contribute to “the form of danger that materialized on January 6,” Mr. Clegg mentioned. Posts that delegitimize elections or which might be associated to the conspiracy concept QAnon, as an example, could also be “down-ranked” on Fb and Instagram feeds, that means they are going to be pushed down and develop into much less seen.

Meta might additionally quickly prohibit entry to its promoting instruments for repeat offenders and take away the reshare button from posts that violate its guidelines, successfully limiting their capability to go viral. The posts may be restricted from being algorithmically really helpful to different customers. However the firm would nonetheless preserve posts that violate its guidelines seen on the account’s web page, at the same time as they restrict the content material from being shared.

When Meta barred Mr. Trump in January 2021, Mark Zuckerberg, the corporate’s chief government, mentioned the president’s use of Fb to “condone slightly than condemn the actions of his supporters on the Capitol constructing has rightly disturbed folks within the U.S. and around the globe.”

The corporate eliminated a number of of Mr. Trump’s posts relating to the Capitol riot and froze his accounts initially for a interval of 24 hours. That was quickly prolonged to “indefinitely.”

Meta has since struggled to elucidate its course of for eradicating Mr. Trump, or its insurance policies which have separate requirements for public figures who violate its guidelines. Critics have assailed the corporate for having double requirements round sure high-profile figures, saying the most important selections largely rested on the whims of Mr. Zuckerberg.

In Might 2021, the Oversight Board, an exterior physique made up of worldwide specialists, teachers and former politicians, discovered that Mr. Zuckerberg was proper to droop Mr. Trump’s account. But it surely mentioned the corporate wanted to determine on a particular period of time for that suspension.

The board mentioned an indefinite suspension for Mr. Trump was “not acceptable” as a result of it was not a punishment clearly set out in Fb’s person guidelines. In its ruling, the board requested the corporate to create clearer pointers and successfully kicked the choice of tips on how to deal with Mr. Trump’s accounts again to Meta’s executives.

In June 2021, Meta mentioned it could droop Mr. Trump from its companies for no less than two years and would assessment the choice by the tip of January 2023.

Lately, Mr. Zuckerberg has handed extra management of coverage selections at Meta to Mr. Clegg, a former deputy prime minister of Britain and profession politician. In February 2022, Mr. Clegg was promoted to Meta’s president of worldwide affairs, successfully overseeing the corporate’s most consequential coverage selections.

Although Mr. Clegg has constructed out a course of and crew to deal with these issues, the buck nonetheless stops with Mr. Zuckerberg’s approval. Each have made clear that they’re in favor of extra speech slightly than much less, besides beneath probably the most extraordinary of circumstances.

“The actual fact is folks will all the time say every kind of issues on the web,” Mr. Clegg wrote in his put up on Wednesday. “We imagine it’s each mandatory and potential to attract a line between content material that’s dangerous and ought to be eliminated, and content material that, nonetheless distasteful or inaccurate, is a part of the tough and tumble of life in a free society.”

Michael C. Bender contributed reporting.