put these statements into reported speech

Reported Speech – Rules, Examples & Worksheet

| Candace Osmond

Candace Osmond

Candace Osmond studied Advanced Writing & Editing Essentials at MHC. She’s been an International and USA TODAY Bestselling Author for over a decade. And she’s worked as an Editor for several mid-sized publications. Candace has a keen eye for content editing and a high degree of expertise in Fiction.

They say gossip is a natural part of human life. That’s why language has evolved to develop grammatical rules about the “he said” and “she said” statements. We call them reported speech.

Every time we use reported speech in English, we are talking about something said by someone else in the past. Thinking about it brings me back to high school, when reported speech was the main form of language!

Learn all about the definition, rules, and examples of reported speech as I go over everything. I also included a worksheet at the end of the article so you can test your knowledge of the topic.

What Does Reported Speech Mean?

Reported speech is a term we use when telling someone what another person said. You can do this while speaking or writing.

There are two kinds of reported speech you can use: direct speech and indirect speech. I’ll break each down for you.

A direct speech sentence mentions the exact words the other person said. For example:

• Kryz said, “These are all my necklaces.”

Indirect speech changes the original speaker’s words. For example:

• Kryz said those were all her necklaces.

When we tell someone what another individual said, we use reporting verbs like told, asked, convinced, persuaded, and said. We also change the first-person figure in the quotation into the third-person speaker.

Reported Speech Examples

We usually talk about the past every time we use reported speech. That’s because the time of speaking is already done. For example:

• Direct speech: The employer asked me, “Do you have experience with people in the corporate setting?”

Indirect speech: The employer asked me if I had experience with people in the corporate setting.

• Direct speech: “I’m working on my thesis,” I told James.

Indirect speech: I told James that I was working on my thesis.

Reported Speech Structure

A speech report has two parts: the reporting clause and the reported clause. Read the example below:

• Harry said, “You need to help me.”

The reporting clause here is William said. Meanwhile, the reported clause is the 2nd clause, which is I need your help.

What are the 4 Types of Reported Speech?

Aside from direct and indirect, reported speech can also be divided into four. The four types of reported speech are similar to the kinds of sentences: imperative, interrogative, exclamatory, and declarative.

Reported Speech Rules

The rules for reported speech can be complex. But with enough practice, you’ll be able to master them all.

Choose Whether to Use That or If

The most common conjunction in reported speech is that. You can say, “My aunt says she’s outside,” or “My aunt says that she’s outside.”

Use if when you’re reporting a yes-no question. For example:

• Direct speech: “Are you coming with us?”

Indirect speech: She asked if she was coming with them.

Verb Tense Changes

Change the reporting verb into its past form if the statement is irrelevant now. Remember that some of these words are irregular verbs, meaning they don’t follow the typical -d or -ed pattern. For example:

• Direct speech: I dislike fried chicken.

Reported speech: She said she disliked fried chicken.

Note how the main verb in the reported statement is also in the past tense verb form.

Use the simple present tense in your indirect speech if the initial words remain relevant at the time of reporting. This verb tense also works if the report is something someone would repeat. For example:

• Slater says they’re opening a restaurant soon.
• Maya says she likes dogs.

This rule proves that the choice of verb tense is not a black-and-white question. The reporter needs to analyze the context of the action.

Move the tense backward when the reporting verb is in the past tense. That means:

• Present simple becomes past simple.
• Present perfect becomes past perfect.
• Present continuous becomes past continuous.
• Past simple becomes past perfect.
• Past continuous becomes past perfect continuous.

Here are some examples:

• The singer has left the building. (present perfect)

He said that the singers had left the building. (past perfect)

• Her sister gave her new shows. (past simple)
• She said that her sister had given her new shoes. (past perfect)

If the original speaker is discussing the future, change the tense of the reporting verb into the past form. There’ll also be a change in the auxiliary verbs.

• Will or shall becomes would.
• Will be becomes would be.
• Will have been becomes would have been.
• Will have becomes would have.

For example:

• Direct speech: “I will be there in a moment.”

Indirect speech: She said that she would be there in a moment.

Do not change the verb tenses in indirect speech when the sentence has a time clause. This rule applies when the introductory verb is in the future, present, and present perfect. Here are other conditions where you must not change the tense:

• If the sentence is a fact or generally true.
• If the sentence’s verb is in the unreal past (using second or third conditional).
• If the original speaker reports something right away.
• Do not change had better, would, used to, could, might, etc.

Changes in Place and Time Reference

Changing the place and time adverb when using indirect speech is essential. For example, now becomes then and today becomes that day. Here are more transformations in adverbs of time and places.

• This – that.
• These – those.
• Now – then.
• Here – there.
• Tomorrow – the next/following day.
• Two weeks ago – two weeks before.
• Yesterday – the day before.

Here are some examples.

• Direct speech: “I am baking cookies now.”

Indirect speech: He said he was baking cookies then.

• Direct speech: “Myra went here yesterday.”

Indirect speech: She said Myra went there the day before.

• Direct speech: “I will go to the market tomorrow.”

Indirect speech: She said she would go to the market the next day.

Using Modals

If the direct speech contains a modal verb, make sure to change them accordingly.

• Will becomes would
• Can becomes could
• Shall becomes should or would.
• Direct speech: “Will you come to the ball with me?”

Indirect speech: He asked if he would come to the ball with me.

• Direct speech: “Gina can inspect the room tomorrow because she’s free.”

Indirect speech: He said Gina could inspect the room the next day because she’s free.

However, sometimes, the modal verb should does not change grammatically. For example:

• Direct speech: “He should go to the park.”

Indirect speech: She said that he should go to the park.

Imperative Sentences

To change an imperative sentence into a reported indirect sentence, use to for imperative and not to for negative sentences. Never use the word that in your indirect speech. Another rule is to remove the word please . Instead, say request or say. For example:

• “Please don’t interrupt the event,” said the host.

The host requested them not to interrupt the event.

• Jonah told her, “Be careful.”
• Jonah ordered her to be careful.

Reported Questions

When reporting a direct question, I would use verbs like inquire, wonder, ask, etc. Remember that we don’t use a question mark or exclamation mark for reports of questions. Below is an example I made of how to change question forms.

• Incorrect: He asked me where I live?

Correct: He asked me where I live.

Here’s another example. The first sentence uses direct speech in a present simple question form, while the second is the reported speech.

• Where do you live?

She asked me where I live.

Wrapping Up Reported Speech

My guide has shown you an explanation of reported statements in English. Do you have a better grasp on how to use it now?

Reported speech refers to something that someone else said. It contains a subject, reporting verb, and a reported cause.

Don’t forget my rules for using reported speech. Practice the correct verb tense, modal verbs, time expressions, and place references.

Grammarist is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. When you buy via the links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission at no cost to you.

2024 © Grammarist, a Found First Marketing company. All rights reserved.

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Reported speech: indirect speech

Indirect speech focuses more on the content of what someone said rather than their exact words. In indirect speech , the structure of the reported clause depends on whether the speaker is reporting a statement, a question or a command.

Indirect speech: reporting statements

Indirect reports of statements consist of a reporting clause and a that -clause. We often omit that , especially in informal situations:

The pilot commented that the weather had been extremely bad as the plane came in to land. (The pilot’s words were: ‘The weather was extremely bad as the plane came in to land.’ )

I told my wife I didn’t want a party on my 50th birthday. ( that -clause without that ) (or I told my wife that I didn’t want a party on my 50th birthday .)

Indirect speech: reporting questions

Reporting yes-no questions and alternative questions.

Indirect reports of yes-no questions and questions with or consist of a reporting clause and a reported clause introduced by if or whether . If is more common than whether . The reported clause is in statement form (subject + verb), not question form:

She asked if [S] [V] I was Scottish. (original yes-no question: ‘Are you Scottish?’ )

The waiter asked whether [S] we [V] wanted a table near the window. (original yes-no question: ‘Do you want a table near the window? )

He asked me if [S] [V] I had come by train or by bus. (original alternative question: ‘Did you come by train or by bus?’ )

Questions: yes-no questions ( Are you feeling cold? )

Reporting wh -questions

Indirect reports of wh -questions consist of a reporting clause, and a reported clause beginning with a wh -word ( who, what, when, where, why, how ). We don’t use a question mark:

He asked me what I wanted.

Not: He asked me what I wanted?

The reported clause is in statement form (subject + verb), not question form:

She wanted to know who [S] we [V] had invited to the party.

Not: … who had we invited …

Who , whom and what

In indirect questions with who, whom and what , the wh- word may be the subject or the object of the reported clause:

I asked them who came to meet them at the airport. ( who is the subject of came ; original question: ‘Who came to meet you at the airport?’ )

He wondered what the repairs would cost. ( what is the object of cost ; original question: ‘What will the repairs cost?’ )

She asked us what [S] we [V] were doing . (original question: ‘What are you doing?’ )

Not: She asked us what were we doing?

When , where , why and how

We also use statement word order (subject + verb) with when , where, why and how :

I asked her when [S] it [V] had happened (original question: ‘When did it happen?’ ).

Not: I asked her when had it happened?

I asked her where [S] the bus station [V] was . (original question: ‘Where is the bus station?’ )

Not: I asked her where was the bus station?

The teacher asked them how [S] they [V] wanted to do the activity . (original question: ‘How do you want to do the activity?’ )

Not: The teacher asked them how did they want to do the activity?

Questions: wh- questions

Indirect speech: reporting commands

Indirect reports of commands consist of a reporting clause, and a reported clause beginning with a to -infinitive:

The General ordered the troops to advance . (original command: ‘Advance!’ )

The chairperson told him to sit down and to stop interrupting . (original command: ‘Sit down and stop interrupting!’ )

We also use a to -infinitive clause in indirect reports with other verbs that mean wanting or getting people to do something, for example, advise, encourage, warn :

They advised me to wait till the following day. (original statement: ‘You should wait till the following day.’ )

The guard warned us not to enter the area. (original statement: ‘You must not enter the area.’ )

Verbs followed by a to -infinitive

Indirect speech: present simple reporting verb

We can use the reporting verb in the present simple in indirect speech if the original words are still true or relevant at the time of reporting, or if the report is of something someone often says or repeats:

Sheila says they’re closing the motorway tomorrow for repairs.

Henry tells me he’s thinking of getting married next year.

Rupert says dogs shouldn’t be allowed on the beach. (Rupert probably often repeats this statement.)

Newspaper headlines

We often use the present simple in newspaper headlines. It makes the reported speech more dramatic:

JUDGE TELLS REPORTER TO LEAVE COURTROOM

PRIME MINISTER SAYS FAMILIES ARE TOP PRIORITY IN TAX REFORM

Present simple ( I work )

Reported speech

Reported speech: direct speech

Indirect speech: past continuous reporting verb

In indirect speech, we can use the past continuous form of the reporting verb (usually say or tell ). This happens mostly in conversation, when the speaker wants to focus on the content of the report, usually because it is interesting news or important information, or because it is a new topic in the conversation:

Rory was telling me the big cinema in James Street is going to close down. Is that true?

Alex was saying that book sales have gone up a lot this year thanks to the Internet.

‘Backshift’ refers to the changes we make to the original verbs in indirect speech because time has passed between the moment of speaking and the time of the report.

In these examples, the present ( am ) has become the past ( was ), the future ( will ) has become the future-in-the-past ( would ) and the past ( happened ) has become the past perfect ( had happened ). The tenses have ‘shifted’ or ‘moved back’ in time.

The past perfect does not shift back; it stays the same:

Modal verbs

Some, but not all, modal verbs ‘shift back’ in time and change in indirect speech.

We can use a perfect form with have + - ed form after modal verbs, especially where the report looks back to a hypothetical event in the past:

He said the noise might have been the postman delivering letters. (original statement: ‘The noise might be the postman delivering letters.’ )

He said he would have helped us if we’d needed a volunteer. (original statement: ‘I’ll help you if you need a volunteer’ or ‘I’d help you if you needed a volunteer.’ )

Used to and ought to do not change in indirect speech:

She said she used to live in Oxford. (original statement: ‘I used to live in Oxford.’ )

The guard warned us that we ought to leave immediately. (original statement: ‘You ought to leave immediately.’ )

No backshift

We don’t need to change the tense in indirect speech if what a person said is still true or relevant or has not happened yet. This often happens when someone talks about the future, or when someone uses the present simple, present continuous or present perfect in their original words:

He told me his brother works for an Italian company. (It is still true that his brother works for an Italian company.)

She said she ’s getting married next year. (For the speakers, the time at the moment of speaking is ‘this year’.)

He said he ’s finished painting the door. (He probably said it just a short time ago.)

She promised she ’ll help us. (The promise applies to the future.)

Indirect speech: changes to pronouns

Changes to personal pronouns in indirect reports depend on whether the person reporting the speech and the person(s) who said the original words are the same or different.

Indirect speech: changes to adverbs and demonstratives

We often change demonstratives ( this, that ) and adverbs of time and place ( now, here, today , etc.) because indirect speech happens at a later time than the original speech, and perhaps in a different place.

Typical changes to demonstratives, adverbs and adverbial expressions

Indirect speech: typical errors.

The word order in indirect reports of wh- questions is the same as statement word order (subject + verb), not question word order:

She always asks me where [S] [V] I am going .

Not: She always asks me where am I going .

We don’t use a question mark when reporting wh- questions:

I asked him what he was doing.

Not: I asked him what he was doing?

Word of the Day

have your head in the clouds

to not know the facts of a situation

Apples and oranges (Talking about differences, Part 2)

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists

To add ${headword} to a word list please sign up or log in.

Add ${headword} to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

Reported Speech (Indirect Speech)

Exercises on reported speech.

If we report what another person has said, we usually do not use the speaker’s exact words (direct speech), but reported (indirect) speech. Therefore, you need to learn how to transform direct speech into reported speech. The structure is a little different depending on whether you want to transform a statement, question or request.

When transforming statements, check whether you have to change:

• present tense verbs (3rd person singular)
• place and time expressions
• tenses (backshift)

→ more on statements in reported speech

When transforming questions, check whether you have to change:

Also note that you have to:

• transform the question into an indirect question
• use the interrogative or if / whether

→ more on questions in reported speech

→ more on requests in reported speech

Additional Information and Exeptions

Apart from the above mentioned basic rules, there are further aspects that you should keep in mind, for example:

• main clauses connected with and / but
• tense of the introductory clause
• reported speech for difficult tenses
• exeptions for backshift
• requests with must , should , ought to and let’s

→ more on additional information and exeptions in reported speech

Statements in Reported Speech

• no backshift – change of pronouns
• no backshift – change of pronouns and places
• with backshift
• with backshift and change of place and time expressions

Questions in Reported Speech

Requests in reported speech.

• Exercise 1 – requests (positive)
• Exercise 2 – requests (negative)
• Exercise 3 – requests (mixed)

Mixed Exercises on Reported Speech

• Exercise on reported speech with and without backshift

Grammar in Texts

• „ The Canterville Ghost “ (highlight direct speech and reported speech)

Reported speech

Speech can be direct and indirect, or reported. 

When you express your thought orally or in writing, it is direct speech. We usually put it in quotes.

When you communicate what someone else said, it is reported speech.

Reported statements

Sue: "I am hungry."

Sue says (that)  she is hungry.

To transfer a positive or a negative sentence to reported speech, we need two parts:

• the main part (she says that... / he claims that... / they deny that...),
• the dependent part which is the transformed direct speech.

Pay attention

In the reported speech, we must replace the pronouns. Otherwise, we won't keep the meaning.

Mary: "I am glad to help you!"

Mary says she is glad to help me . BUT NOT Mary says I am glad to help you.

You should also be careful with  time indicators (today, now, next week etc.) not to lose the idea of the original direct statement.

The word  that  can be used or left out, both options are correct.

Backshift of tenses in reported speech

When we have a sentence that consists of the main and the dependent part we need to be careful with the verb tenses. The tense in the main part affects the tense in the dependent part. This is called backshifting.

If the main part is in the present simple (e.g., "she says...", "he tells me..."), the dependent part remains unchanged.

John: "I have just got up."

John says he has just got up. "Says" is the present simple → no backshifting

If the main part is in the  past simple, we have to do the backshifting. Its basic principle is that the past simple in the main part "pushes" the tense of the dependent part one step back in time. This way we balance both parts of the sentence.

You can view the topic ' reported statements ' with an explanation and exercises.

Reported questions

If the direct question began with a question word (when, what, how, why and so on), then in the reported speech:

• the sentence changes from question to positive, with a direct word order
• we need to do the backshifting if we have the past simple in the main part

"Why did you leave the door open?" → She asked me why I had left the door open.

"Where have you been?" → She asked me where I had been.

If the direct question didn't have a question word (it was a yes/no question), we add the word "if" to transform it into reported speech. The rules of backshifting are the same.

"Will it rain tomorrow?" → They wanted to know if it would rain the next day.

"Can I lend your pen for a second?" → I asked if I could lend his pen for a second.

You can also view the topic ' reported questions ' for a detailed explanation and exercises.

Reported requests and demands

If we want to transform somebody's demand or request into reported speech, we say:

• tell somebody to do something — for reported commands
• ask somebody to do something — for reported requests

If the imperative was negative (don't go, don't do), we put "not" before "to":  tell somebody not to do something.

"Do not cross the red line, please!" → The officer told us not to cross the red line.

"Could you put the flowers in the vase, please?" → She asked me to put the flowers in the vase.

You can also view the topic ' reported requests & demands ' for a detailed explanation and exercises.

Search form

• B1-B2 grammar

Reported speech

Daisy has just had an interview for a summer job. 

Instructions

As you watch the video, look at the examples of reported speech. They are in  red  in the subtitles. Then read the conversation below to learn more. Finally, do the grammar exercises to check you understand, and can use, reported speech correctly.

Sophie:  Mmm, it’s so nice to be chilling out at home after all that running around.

Ollie: Oh, yeah, travelling to glamorous places for a living must be such a drag!

Ollie: Mum, you can be so childish sometimes. Hey, I wonder how Daisy’s getting on in her job interview.

Sophie: Oh, yes, she said she was having it at four o’clock, so it’ll have finished by now. That’ll be her ... yes. Hi, love. How did it go?

Daisy: Well, good I think, but I don’t really know. They said they’d phone later and let me know.

Sophie: What kind of thing did they ask you?

Daisy: They asked if I had any experience with people, so I told them about helping at the school fair and visiting old people at the home, that sort of stuff. But I think they meant work experience.

Sophie: I’m sure what you said was impressive. They can’t expect you to have had much work experience at your age.

Daisy:  And then they asked me what acting I had done, so I told them that I’d had a main part in the school play, and I showed them a bit of the video, so that was cool.

Sophie:  Great!

Daisy: Oh, and they also asked if I spoke any foreign languages.

Sophie: Languages?

Daisy: Yeah, because I might have to talk to tourists, you know.

Sophie: Oh, right, of course.

Daisy: So that was it really. They showed me the costume I’ll be wearing if I get the job. Sending it over ...

Ollie: Hey, sis, I heard that Brad Pitt started out as a giant chicken too! This could be your big break!

Daisy: Ha, ha, very funny.

Sophie: Take no notice, darling. I’m sure you’ll be a marvellous chicken.

We use reported speech when we want to tell someone what someone said. We usually use a reporting verb (e.g. say, tell, ask, etc.) and then change the tense of what was actually said in direct speech.

So, direct speech is what someone actually says? Like 'I want to know about reported speech'?

Yes, and you report it with a reporting verb.

He said he wanted to know about reported speech.

I said, I want and you changed it to he wanted .

Exactly. Verbs in the present simple change to the past simple; the present continuous changes to the past continuous; the present perfect changes to the past perfect; can changes to could ; will changes to would ; etc.

She said she was having the interview at four o’clock. (Direct speech: ' I’m having the interview at four o’clock.') They said they’d phone later and let me know. (Direct speech: ' We’ll phone later and let you know.')

OK, in that last example, you changed you to me too.

Yes, apart from changing the tense of the verb, you also have to think about changing other things, like pronouns and adverbs of time and place.

'We went yesterday.'  > She said they had been the day before. 'I’ll come tomorrow.' >  He said he’d come the next day.

I see, but what if you’re reporting something on the same day, like 'We went yesterday'?

Well, then you would leave the time reference as 'yesterday'. You have to use your common sense. For example, if someone is saying something which is true now or always, you wouldn’t change the tense.

'Dogs can’t eat chocolate.' > She said that dogs can’t eat chocolate. 'My hair grows really slowly.' >  He told me that his hair grows really slowly.

What about reporting questions?

We often use ask + if/whether , then change the tenses as with statements. In reported questions we don’t use question forms after the reporting verb.

'Do you have any experience working with people?' They asked if I had any experience working with people. 'What acting have you done?' They asked me what acting I had done .

Is there anything else I need to know about reported speech?

One thing that sometimes causes problems is imperative sentences.

You mean like 'Sit down, please' or 'Don’t go!'?

Exactly. Sentences that start with a verb in direct speech need a to + infinitive in reported speech.

She told him to be good. (Direct speech: 'Be good!') He told them not to forget. (Direct speech: 'Please don’t forget.')

OK. Can I also say 'He asked me to sit down'?

Yes. You could say 'He told me to …' or 'He asked me to …' depending on how it was said.

OK, I see. Are there any more reporting verbs?

Yes, there are lots of other reporting verbs like promise , remind , warn , advise , recommend , encourage which you can choose, depending on the situation. But say , tell and ask are the most common.

Great. I understand! My teacher said reported speech was difficult.

And I told you not to worry!

Check your grammar: matching

Check your grammar: error correction, check your grammar: gap fill, worksheets and downloads.

What was the most memorable conversation you had yesterday? Who were you talking to and what did they say to you?

Sign up to our newsletter for LearnEnglish Teens

We will process your data to send you our newsletter and updates based on your consent. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the "unsubscribe" link at the bottom of every email. Read our privacy policy for more information.

Reported Speech (Indirect Speech) in English – Summary

How to use reported speech.

If you have a sentence in Direct Speech, try to follow our 5 steps to put the sentence into Reported Speech..

• Define the type of the sentence (statement, questions, command)
• What tense is used in the introductory sentence?
• Do you have to change the person (pronoun)?
• Do you have to backshift the tenses?
• Do you have to change expressions of time and place?

1. Statements, Questions, Commands

Mind the type of sentences when you use Reported Speech. There is more detailed information on the following pages.

• Commands, Requests

2. The introductory sentence

If you use Reported Speech there are mostly two main differences.

The introductory sentence in Reported Speech can be in the Present or in the Past .

If the introductory sentences is in the Simple Present, there is no backshift of tenses.

Direct Speech:

• Susan, “ Mary work s in an office.”

Reported Speech:

• Introductory sentence in the Simple Present → Susan says (that)* Mary work s in an office.
• Introductory sentence in the Simple Past → Susan said (that)* Mary work ed in an office.

3. Change of persons/pronouns

If there is a pronoun in Direct Speech, it has possibly to be changed in Reported Speech, depending on the siutation.

• Direct Speech → Susan, “I work in an office.”
• Reported Speech → Susan said (that)* she worked in an office.

Here I is changed to she .

4. Backshift of tenses

If there is backshift of tenses in Reported Speech, the tenses are shifted the following way.

• Direct Speech → Peter, “ I work in the garden.”
• Reported Speech → Peter said (that)* he work ed in the garden.

5. Conversion of expressions of time and place

If there is an expression of time/place in the sentence, it may be changed, depending on the situation.

• Direct Speech → Peter, “I worked in the garden yesterday .”
• Reported Speech → Peter said (that) he had worked in the garden the day before .

6. Additional information

In some cases backshift of tenses is not necessary, e.g. when statements are still true. Backshift of tenses is never wrong.

• John, “My brother is at Leipzig university.”
• John said (that) his brother was at Leipzig university. or
• John said (that) his brother is at Leipzig university.

when you use general statements.

• Mandy, “The sun rises in the east.”
• Mandy said (that) the sun rose in the east. or
• Mandy said (that) the sun rises in the east.

* The word that is optional, that is the reason why we put it in brackets.

• You are here:
• Grammar Explanations
• Reported Speech

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser or activate Google Chrome Frame to improve your experience.

Reported Speech in English

“Reported speech” might sound fancy, but it isn’t that complicated.

It’s just how you talk about what someone said.

Luckily, it’s pretty simple to learn the basics in English, beginning with the two types of reported speech: direct (reporting the exact words someone said) and indirect (reporting what someone said without using their exact words ).

Read this post to learn how to report speech, with tips and tricks for each, plenty of examples and a resources section that tells you about real world resources you can use to practice reporting speech.

How to Report Direct Speech

How to report indirect speech, reporting questions in indirect speech, verb tenses in indirect reported speech, simple present, present continuous, present perfect, present perfect continuous, simple past, past continuous, past perfect, past perfect continuous, simple future, future continuous, future perfect, future perfect continuous, authentic resources for practicing reported speech, novels and short stories, native english videos, celebrity profiles.

Download: This blog post is available as a convenient and portable PDF that you can take anywhere. Click here to get a copy. (Download)

Direct speech refers to the exact words that a person says. You can “report” direct speech in a few different ways.

To see how this works, let’s pretend that I (Elisabeth) told some people that I liked green onions.

Here are some different ways that those people could explain what I said:

Direct speech: “I like green onions,” Elisabeth said.

• Thousands of learner friendly videos (especially beginners)
• Handpicked, organized, and annotated by FluentU's experts
• Integrated into courses for beginners

Direct speech: “I like green onions,” she told me. — In this sentence, we replace my name (Elisabeth) with the pronoun she.

In all of these examples, the part that was said is between quotation marks and is followed by a noun (“she” or “Elisabeth”) and a verb. Each of these verbs (“to say,” “to tell [someone],” “to explain”) are ways to describe someone talking. You can use any verb that refers to speech in this way.

You can also put the noun and verb before what was said.

Direct speech: Elisabeth said, “I like spaghetti.”

The example above would be much more likely to be said out loud than the first set of examples.

Here’s a conversation that might happen between two people:

• Interactive subtitles: click any word to see detailed examples and explanations
• Slow down or loop the tricky parts
• Show or hide subtitles
• Review words with our powerful learning engine

1: Did you ask her if she liked coffee?

2: Yeah, I asked her.

1: What did she say?

2. She said, “Yeah, I like coffee.” ( Direct speech )

Usually, reporting of direct speech is something you see in writing. It doesn’t happen as often when people are talking to each other. 

Direct reported speech often happens in the past. However, there are all kinds of stories, including journalism pieces, profiles and fiction, where you might see speech reported in the present as well.

This is sometimes done when the author of the piece wants you to feel that you’re experiencing events in the present moment.

• Learn words in the context of sentences
• Swipe left or right to see more examples from other videos
• Go beyond just a superficial understanding

For example, a profile of Kristen Stewart in Vanity Fair  has a funny moment that describes how the actress isn’t a very good swimmer:

Direct speech: “I don’t want to enter the water, ever,” she says. “If everyone’s going in the ocean, I’m like, no.”

Here, the speech is reported as though it’s in the present tense (“she says”) instead of in the past (“she said”).

In writing of all kinds, direct reported speech is often split into two or more parts, as it is above.

Here’s an example from Lewis Carroll’s “ Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland ,” where the speech is even more split up:

Direct speech: “I won’t indeed!” said Alice, in a great hurry to change the subject of conversation. “Are you—are you fond—of—of dogs?” The Mouse did not answer, so Alice went on eagerly: “There is such a nice little dog near our house I should like to show you!”

Reporting indirect speech is what happens when you explain what someone said without using their exact words.

• FluentU builds you up, so you can build sentences on your own
• Start with multiple-choice questions and advance through sentence building to producing your own output
• Go from understanding to speaking in a natural progression.

Let’s start with an example of direct reported speech like those used above.

Direct speech: Elisabeth said, “I like coffee.”

As indirect reported speech, it looks like this:

Indirect speech: Elisabeth said she liked coffee.

You can see that the subject (“I”) has been changed to “she,” to show who is being spoken about. If I’m reporting the direct speech of someone else, and this person says “I,” I’d repeat their sentence exactly as they said it. If I’m reporting this person’s speech indirectly to someone else, however, I’d speak about them in the third person—using “she,” “he” or “they.”

You may also notice that the tense changes here: If “I like coffee” is what she said, this can become “She liked coffee” in indirect speech.

• Images, examples, video examples, and tips
• Covering all the tricky edge cases, eg.: phrases, idioms, collocations, and separable verbs
• No reliance on volunteers or open source dictionaries
• 100,000+ hours spent by FluentU's team to create and maintain

However, you might just as often hear someone say something like, “She said she likes coffee.” Since people’s likes and preferences tend to change over time and not right away, it makes sense to keep them in the present tense.

Indirect speech often uses the word “that” before what was said:

Indirect speech: She said that she liked coffee.

There’s no real difference between “She said she liked coffee” and “She said that she liked coffee.” However, using “that” can help make the different parts of the sentence clearer.

Let’s look at a few other examples:

Indirect speech: I said I was going outside today.

Indirect speech: They told me that they wanted to order pizza.

Indirect speech: He mentioned it was raining.

Indirect speech: She said that her father was coming over for dinner.

You can see an example of reporting indirect speech in the funny video “ Cell Phone Crashing .” In this video, a traveler in an airport sits down next to another traveler talking on his cell phone. The first traveler pretends to be talking to someone on his phone, but he appears to be responding to the second traveler’s conversation, which leads to this exchange:

Woman: “Are you answering what I’m saying?”

Man “No, no… I’m on the phone with somebody, sorry. I don’t mean to be rude.” (Direct speech)

Woman: “What was that?”

Man: “I just said I was on the phone with somebody.” (Indirect speech)

When reporting questions in indirect speech, you can use words like “whether” or “if” with verbs that show questioning, such as “to ask” or “to wonder.”

Direct speech: She asked, “Is that a new restaurant?”

Indirect speech: She asked if that was a new restaurant. 

In any case where you’re reporting a question, you can say that someone was “wondering” or “wanted to know” something. Notice that these verbs don’t directly show that someone asked a question. They don’t describe an action that happened at a single point in time. But you can usually assume that someone was wondering or wanted to know what they asked.

Indirect speech: She was wondering if that was a new restaurant.

Indirect speech: She wanted to know whether that was a new restaurant.

It can be tricky to know how to use tenses when reporting indirect speech. Let’s break it down, tense by tense.

Sometimes, indirect speech “ backshifts ,” or moves one tense further back into the past. We already saw this in the example from above:

Direct speech: She said, “I like coffee.”

Indirect speech: She said she liked coffee.

Also as mentioned above, backshifting doesn’t always happen. This might seem confusing, but it isn’t that difficult to understand once you start using reported speech regularly.

What tense you use in indirect reported speech often just depends on when what you’re reporting happened or was true.

Let’s look at some examples of how direct speech in certain tenses commonly changes (or doesn’t) when it’s reported as indirect speech.

To learn about all the English tenses (or for a quick review), check out this post .

Direct speech: I said, “I play video games.”

Indirect speech: I said that I played video games (simple past) or I said that I play video games  (simple present).

Backshifting into the past or staying in the present here can change the meaning slightly. If you use the first example, it’s unclear whether or not you still play video games; all we know is that you said you played them in the past.

If you use the second example, though, you probably still play video games (unless you were lying for some reason).

However, the difference in meaning is so small, you can use either one and you won’t have a problem.

Direct speech: I said, “I’m playing video games.”

Indirect speech: I said that I was playing video games (past continuous) or I said that I’m playing video games (present continuous).

In this case, you’d likely use the first example if you were telling a story about something that happened in the past.

You could use the second example to repeat or stress what you just said. For example:

Hey, want to go for a walk?

Direct speech: No, I’m playing video games.

But it’s such a nice day!

Indirect speech: I said that I’m playing video games!

Direct speech: Marie said, “I have read that book.”

Indirect speech: Marie said that she had read that book (past perfect) or Marie said that she has read that book (present perfect).

The past perfect is used a lot in writing and other kinds of narration. This is because it helps point out an exact moment in time when something was true.

The past perfect isn’t quite as useful in conversation, where people are usually more interested in what’s true now. So, in a lot of cases, people would use the second example above when speaking.

Direct speech: She said, “I have been watching that show.”

Indirect speech: She said that she had been watching that show (past perfect continuous) or She said that she has been watching that show (present perfect continuous).

These examples are similar to the others above. You could use the first example whether or not this person was still watching the show, but if you used the second example, it’d probably seem like you either knew or guessed that she was still watching it.

Direct speech: You told me, “I charged my phone.”

Indirect speech: You told me that you had charged your phone (past perfect) or You told me that you charged your phone (simple past).

Here, most people would probably just use the second example, because it’s simpler, and gets across the same meaning.

Direct speech: You told me, “I was charging my phone.”

Indirect speech: You told me that you had been charging your phone (past perfect continuous) or You told me that you were charging your phone (past continuous).

Here, the difference is between whether you had been charging your phone before or were charging your phone at the time. However, a lot of people would still use the second example in either situation.

Direct speech: They explained, “We had bathed the cat on Wednesday.”

Indirect speech: They explained that they had bathed the cat on Wednesday. (past perfect)

Once we start reporting the past perfect tenses, we don’t backshift because there are no tenses to backshift to.

So in this case, it’s simple. The tense stays exactly as is. However, many people might simplify even more and use the simple past, saying, “They explained that they bathed the cat on Wednesday.”

Direct speech: They said, “The cat had been going outside and getting dirty for a long time!”

Indirect speech: They said that the cat had been going outside and getting dirty for a long time. (past perfect continuous)

Again, we don’t shift the tense back here; we leave it like it is. And again, a lot of people would report this speech as, “They said the cat was going outside and getting dirty for a long time.” It’s just a simpler way to say almost the same thing.

Direct speech: I told you, “I will be here no matter what.”

Indirect speech: I told you that I would be here no matter what. (present conditional)

At this point, we don’t just have to think about tenses, but grammatical mood, too. However, the idea is still pretty simple. We use the conditional (with “would”) to show that at the time the words were spoken, the future was uncertain.

In this case, you could also say, “I told you that I will be here no matter what,” but only if you “being here” is still something that you expect to happen in the future.

What matters here is what’s intended. Since this example shows a person reporting their own speech, it’s more likely that they’d want to stress the truth of their own intention, and so they might be more likely to use “will” than “would.”

But if you were reporting someone else’s words, you might be more likely to say something like, “She told me that she would be here no matter what.”

Direct speech: I said, “I’ll be waiting for your call.”

Indirect speech: I said that I would be waiting for your call. (conditional continuous)

These are similar to the above examples, but apply to a continuous or ongoing action.

Direct speech: She said, “I will have learned a lot about myself.”

Indirect speech: She said that she would have learned a lot about herself (conditional perfect) or She said that she will have learned a lot about herself (future perfect).

In this case, using the conditional (as in the first example) suggests that maybe a certain event didn’t happen, or something didn’t turn out as expected.

However, that might not always be the case, especially if this was a sentence that was written in an article or a work of fiction. The second example, however, suggests that the future that’s being talked about still hasn’t happened yet.

Direct speech: She said, “By next Tuesday, I will have been staying inside every day for the past month.”

Indirect speech: She said that by next Tuesday, she would have been staying inside every day for the past month (perfect continuous conditional) or She said that by next Tuesday, she will have been staying inside every day for the past month (past perfect continuous).

Again, in this case, the first example might suggest that the event didn’t happen. Maybe the person didn’t stay inside until next Tuesday! However, this could also just be a way of explaining that at the time she said this in the past, it was uncertain whether she really would stay inside for as long as she thought.

The second example, on the other hand, would only be used if next Tuesday hadn’t happened yet.

Let’s take a look at where you can find resources for practicing reporting speech in the real world.

One of the most common uses for reported speech is in fiction. You’ll find plenty of reported speech in novels and short stories . Look for books that have long sections of text with dialogue marked by quotation marks (“…”). Once you understand the different kinds of reported speech, you can look for it in your reading and use it in your own writing.

Writing your own stories is a great way to get even better at understanding reported speech.

One of the best ways to practice any aspect of English is to watch native English videos. By watching English speakers use the language, you can understand how reported speech is used in real world situations.

FluentU takes authentic videos—like music videos, movie trailers, news and inspiring talks—and turns them into personalized language learning lessons.

You can try FluentU for free for 2 weeks. Check out the website or download the iOS app or Android app.

P.S. Click here to take advantage of our current sale! (Expires at the end of this month.)

Try FluentU for FREE!

Celebrity profiles, which you can find in print magazines and online, can help you find and practice reported speech, too. Celebrity profiles are stories that focus on a famous person. They often include some kind of interview. The writer will usually spend some time describing the person and then mention things that they say; this is when they use reported speech.

Because many of these profiles are written in the present tense, they can help you get used to the basics of reported speech without having to worry too much about different verb tenses.

While the above may seem really complicated, it isn’t that difficult to start using reported speech.

Mastering it may be a little difficult, but the truth is that many, many people who speak English as a first language struggle with it, too!

Reported speech is flexible, and even if you make mistakes, there’s a good chance that no one will notice.

Enter your e-mail address to get your free PDF!

We hate SPAM and promise to keep your email address safe

100 Reported Speech Examples: How To Change Direct Speech Into Indirect Speech

Reported speech, also known as indirect speech, is a way of communicating what someone else has said without quoting their exact words. For example, if your friend said, “ I am going to the store ,” in reported speech, you might convey this as, “ My friend said he was going to the store. ” Reported speech is common in both spoken and written language, especially in storytelling, news reporting, and everyday conversations.

Reported speech can be quite challenging for English language learners because in order to change direct speech into reported speech, one must change the perspective and tense of what was said by the original speaker or writer. In this guide, we will explain in detail how to change direct speech into indirect speech and provide lots of examples of reported speech to help you understand. Here are the key aspects of converting direct speech into reported speech.

Reported Speech: Changing Pronouns

Pronouns are usually changed to match the perspective of the person reporting the speech. For example, “I” in direct speech may become “he” or “she” in reported speech, depending on the context. Here are some example sentences:

• Direct : “I am going to the park.” Reported : He said he was going to the park .
• Direct : “You should try the new restaurant.” Reported : She said that I should try the new restaurant.
• Direct : “We will win the game.” Reported : They said that they would win the game.
• Direct : “She loves her new job.” Reported : He said that she loves her new job.
• Direct : “He can’t come to the party.” Reported : She said that he couldn’t come to the party.
• Direct : “It belongs to me.” Reported : He said that it belonged to him .
• Direct : “They are moving to a new city.” Reported : She said that they were moving to a new city.
• Direct : “You are doing a great job.” Reported : He told me that I was doing a great job.
• Direct : “I don’t like this movie.” Reported : She said that she didn’t like that movie.
• Direct : “We have finished our work.” Reported : They said that they had finished their work.
• Direct : “You will need to sign here.” Reported : He said that I would need to sign there.
• Direct : “She can solve the problem.” Reported : He said that she could solve the problem.
• Direct : “He was not at home yesterday.” Reported : She said that he had not been at home the day before.
• Direct : “It is my responsibility.” Reported : He said that it was his responsibility.
• Direct : “We are planning a surprise.” Reported : They said that they were planning a surprise.

Reported Speech: Reporting Verbs

In reported speech, various reporting verbs are used depending on the nature of the statement or the intention behind the communication. These verbs are essential for conveying the original tone, intent, or action of the speaker. Here are some examples demonstrating the use of different reporting verbs in reported speech:

• Direct: “I will help you,” she promised . Reported: She promised that she would help me.
• Direct: “You should study harder,” he advised . Reported: He advised that I should study harder.
• Direct: “I didn’t take your book,” he denied . Reported: He denied taking my book .
• Direct: “Let’s go to the cinema,” she suggested . Reported: She suggested going to the cinema .
• Direct: “I love this song,” he confessed . Reported: He confessed that he loved that song.
• Direct: “I haven’t seen her today,” she claimed . Reported: She claimed that she hadn’t seen her that day.
• Direct: “I will finish the project,” he assured . Reported: He assured me that he would finish the project.
• Direct: “I’m not feeling well,” she complained . Reported: She complained of not feeling well.
• Direct: “This is how you do it,” he explained . Reported: He explained how to do it.
• Direct: “I saw him yesterday,” she stated . Reported: She stated that she had seen him the day before.
• Direct: “Please open the window,” he requested . Reported: He requested that I open the window.
• Direct: “I can win this race,” he boasted . Reported: He boasted that he could win the race.
• Direct: “I’m moving to London,” she announced . Reported: She announced that she was moving to London.
• Direct: “I didn’t understand the instructions,” he admitted . Reported: He admitted that he didn’t understand the instructions.
• Direct: “I’ll call you tonight,” she promised . Reported: She promised to call me that night.

Reported Speech: Tense Shifts

When converting direct speech into reported speech, the verb tense is often shifted back one step in time. This is known as the “backshift” of tenses. It’s essential to adjust the tense to reflect the time elapsed between the original speech and the reporting. Here are some examples to illustrate how different tenses in direct speech are transformed in reported speech:

• Direct: “I am eating.” Reported: He said he was eating.
• Direct: “They will go to the park.” Reported: She mentioned they would go to the park.
• Direct: “We have finished our homework.” Reported: They told me they had finished their homework.
• Direct: “I do my exercises every morning.” Reported: He explained that he did his exercises every morning.
• Direct: “She is going to start a new job.” Reported: He heard she was going to start a new job.
• Direct: “I can solve this problem.” Reported: She said she could solve that problem.
• Direct: “We are visiting Paris next week.” Reported: They said they were visiting Paris the following week.
• Direct: “I will be waiting outside.” Reported: He stated he would be waiting outside.
• Direct: “They have been studying for hours.” Reported: She mentioned they had been studying for hours.
• Direct: “I can’t understand this chapter.” Reported: He complained that he couldn’t understand that chapter.
• Direct: “We were planning a surprise.” Reported: They told me they had been planning a surprise.
• Direct: “She has to complete her assignment.” Reported: He said she had to complete her assignment.
• Direct: “I will have finished the project by Monday.” Reported: She stated she would have finished the project by Monday.
• Direct: “They are going to hold a meeting.” Reported: She heard they were going to hold a meeting.
• Direct: “I must leave.” Reported: He said he had to leave.

Reported Speech: Changing Time and Place References

When converting direct speech into reported speech, references to time and place often need to be adjusted to fit the context of the reported speech. This is because the time and place relative to the speaker may have changed from the original statement to the time of reporting. Here are some examples to illustrate how time and place references change:

• Direct: “I will see you tomorrow .” Reported: He said he would see me the next day .
• Direct: “We went to the park yesterday .” Reported: They said they went to the park the day before .
• Direct: “I have been working here since Monday .” Reported: She mentioned she had been working there since Monday .
• Direct: “Let’s meet here at noon.” Reported: He suggested meeting there at noon.
• Direct: “I bought this last week .” Reported: She said she had bought it the previous week .
• Direct: “I will finish this by tomorrow .” Reported: He stated he would finish it by the next day .
• Direct: “She will move to New York next month .” Reported: He heard she would move to New York the following month .
• Direct: “They were at the festival this morning .” Reported: She said they were at the festival that morning .
• Direct: “I saw him here yesterday.” Reported: She mentioned she saw him there the day before.
• Direct: “We will return in a week .” Reported: They said they would return in a week .
• Direct: “I have an appointment today .” Reported: He said he had an appointment that day .
• Direct: “The event starts next Friday .” Reported: She mentioned the event starts the following Friday .
• Direct: “I lived in Berlin two years ago .” Reported: He stated he had lived in Berlin two years before .
• Direct: “I will call you tonight .” Reported: She said she would call me that night .
• Direct: “I was at the office yesterday .” Reported: He mentioned he was at the office the day before .

Reported Speech: Question Format

When converting questions from direct speech into reported speech, the format changes significantly. Unlike statements, questions require rephrasing into a statement format and often involve the use of introductory verbs like ‘asked’ or ‘inquired’. Here are some examples to demonstrate how questions in direct speech are converted into statements in reported speech:

• Direct: “Are you coming to the party?” Reported: She asked if I was coming to the party.
• Direct: “What time is the meeting?” Reported: He inquired what time the meeting was.
• Direct: “Why did you leave early?” Reported: They wanted to know why I had left early.
• Direct: “Can you help me with this?” Reported: She asked if I could help her with that.
• Direct: “Where did you buy this?” Reported: He wondered where I had bought that.
• Direct: “Who is going to the concert?” Reported: They asked who was going to the concert.
• Direct: “How do you solve this problem?” Reported: She questioned how to solve that problem.
• Direct: “Is this the right way to the station?” Reported: He inquired whether it was the right way to the station.
• Direct: “Do you know her name?” Reported: They asked if I knew her name.
• Direct: “Why are they moving out?” Reported: She wondered why they were moving out.
• Direct: “Have you seen my keys?” Reported: He asked if I had seen his keys.
• Direct: “What were they talking about?” Reported: She wanted to know what they had been talking about.
• Direct: “When will you return?” Reported: He asked when I would return.
• Direct: “Can she drive a manual car?” Reported: They inquired if she could drive a manual car.
• Direct: “How long have you been waiting?” Reported: She asked how long I had been waiting.

Reported Speech: Omitting Quotation Marks

In reported speech, quotation marks are not used, differentiating it from direct speech which requires them to enclose the spoken words. Reported speech summarizes or paraphrases what someone said without the need for exact wording. Here are examples showing how direct speech with quotation marks is transformed into reported speech without them:

• Direct: “I am feeling tired,” she said. Reported: She said she was feeling tired.
• Direct: “We will win the game,” he exclaimed. Reported: He exclaimed that they would win the game.
• Direct: “I don’t like apples,” the boy declared. Reported: The boy declared that he didn’t like apples.
• Direct: “You should visit Paris,” she suggested. Reported: She suggested that I should visit Paris.
• Direct: “I will be late,” he warned. Reported: He warned that he would be late.
• Direct: “I can’t believe you did that,” she expressed in surprise. Reported: She expressed her surprise that I had done that.
• Direct: “I need help with this task,” he admitted. Reported: He admitted that he needed help with the task.
• Direct: “I have never been to Italy,” she confessed. Reported: She confessed that she had never been to Italy.
• Direct: “We saw a movie last night,” they mentioned. Reported: They mentioned that they saw a movie the night before.
• Direct: “I am learning to play the piano,” he revealed. Reported: He revealed that he was learning to play the piano.
• Direct: “You must finish your homework,” she instructed. Reported: She instructed that I must finish my homework.
• Direct: “I will call you tomorrow,” he promised. Reported: He promised that he would call me the next day.
• Direct: “I have finished my assignment,” she announced. Reported: She announced that she had finished her assignment.
• Direct: “I cannot attend the meeting,” he apologized. Reported: He apologized for not being able to attend the meeting.
• Direct: “I don’t remember where I put it,” she confessed. Reported: She confessed that she didn’t remember where she put it.

Reported Speech Quiz

Thanks for reading! I hope you found these reported speech examples useful. Before you go, why not try this Reported Speech Quiz and see if you can change indirect speech into reported speech?

Reported Speech Exercises

Perfect english grammar.

Here's a list of all the reported speech exercises on this site:

( Click here to read the explanations about reported speech )

Reported Statements:

• Present Simple Reported Statement Exercise (quite easy) (in PDF here)
• Present Continuous Reported Statement Exercise (quite easy) (in PDF here)
• Past Simple Reported Statement Exercise (quite easy) (in PDF here)
• Present Perfect Reported Statement Exercise (quite easy) (in PDF here)
• Future Simple Reported Statement Exercise (quite easy) (in PDF here)
• Mixed Tense Reported Statement Exercise (intermediate) (in PDF here)
• 'Say' and 'Tell' (quite easy) (in PDF here)

Reported Questions:

• Present Simple Reported Yes/No Question Exercise (intermediate) (in PDF here)
• Present Simple Reported Wh Question Exercise (intermediate) (in PDF here)
• Mixed Tense Reported Question Exercise (intermediate) (in PDF here)

Reported Orders and Requests:

• Reported Requests and Orders Exercise (intermediate) (in PDF here)
• Reported Speech Mixed Exercise 1 (difficult) (in PDF here)
• Reported Speech Mixed Exercise 2 (difficult) (in PDF here)

Hello! I'm Seonaid! I'm here to help you understand grammar and speak correct, fluent English.

Read more about our learning method

The Reported Speech

Table of Contents

What is reported speech.

Reported speech is when you tell somebody what you or another person said before. When reporting a speech, some changes are necessary.

For example, the statement:

• Jane said she was waiting for her mom .

is a reported speech, whereas:

• Jane said, “I’m waiting for my mom.”

is a direct speech.

Reported speech is also referred to as indirect speech or indirect discourse .

Before explaining how to report a discourse, let us first distinguish between direct speech and reported speech .

Direct speech vs reported speech

1. We use direct speech to quote a speaker’s exact words. We put their words within quotation marks. We add a reporting verb such as “he said” or “she asked” before or after the quote.

• He said, “I am happy.”

2. Reported speech is a way of reporting what someone said without using quotation marks. We do not necessarily report the speaker”‘s exact words. Some changes are necessary: the time expressions, the tense of the verbs, and the demonstratives.

• He said that he was happy.

More examples:

Different types of reported speech

When you use reported speech, you either report:

• Requests/commands
• Other types

A. Reporting statements

When transforming statements, check whether you have to change:

• place and time expression

1- Pronouns

In reported speech, you often have to change the pronoun depending on who says what.

She says, “My dad likes roast chicken.” => She says that her dad likes roast chicken.

• If the sentence starts in the present, there is no backshift of tenses in reported speech.
• If the sentence starts in the past, there is often a backshift of tenses in reported speech.

No backshift

Do not change the tense if the introductory clause (i.e., the reporting verb) is in the present tense (e. g. He says ). Note, however, that you might have to change the form of the present tense verb (3rd person singular).

• He says, “I write poems.” => He says that he writes English.

You must change the tense if the introductory clause (i.e., the reporting verb) is in the past tense (e. g. He said ).

• He said, “I am happy.”=> He said that he was happy.

Examples of the main changes in verb tense :

3. Modal verbs

The modal verbs could, should, would, might, needn’t, ought to, and used to do not normally change.

• He said: “She might be right.” => He said that she might be right.
• He told her: “You needn’t see a doctor.” => He told her that she needn’t see a doctor.

Other modal verbs such as can, shall, will, must, and ma y change:

4- Place, demonstratives, and time expressions

Place, demonstratives, and time expressions change if the context of the reported statement (i.e. the location and/or the period of time) is different from that of the direct speech.

In the following table, you will find the different changes of place; demonstratives, and time expressions.

B. Reporting Questions

When transforming questions, check whether you have to change:

• The pronouns
• The place and time expressions
• The tenses (backshift)

Also, note that you have to:

• transform the question into an indirect question
• use the question word ( where, when, what, how ) or if / whether

>> EXERCISE ON REPORTING QUESTIONS <<

C. Reporting requests/commands

When transforming requests and commands, check whether you have to change:

• place and time expressions
• She said, “Sit down.” – She asked me to sit down.
• She said, “don’t be lazy” – She asked me not to be lazy

D. Other transformations

• Expressions of advice with must , should, and ought are usually reported using advise / urge . Example: “You must read this book.” He advised/urged me to read that book.
• The expression let’s is usually reported using suggest . In this case, there are two possibilities for reported speech: gerund or statement with should . Example : “Let’s go to the cinema.” 1. He suggested going to the cinema. 2. He suggested that we should go to the cinema.

Main clauses connected with and/but

If two complete main clauses are connected with and or but , put that after the conjunction.

• He said, “I saw her but she didn’t see me.=> He said that he had seen her but that she hadn’t seen him.

If the subject is dropped in the second main clause (the conjunction is followed by a verb), do not use that .

• She said, “I am a nurse and work in a hospital.=> He said that she was a nurse and worked in a hospital.

punctuation rules of the reported speech

Direct speech:

We normally add a comma between the reporting verbs (e.g., she/he said, reported, he replied, etc.) and the reported clause in direct speech. The original speaker”s words are put between inverted commas, either single (“…”) or double (“…”).

• She said, “I wasn’t ready for the competition”.

Note that we insert the comma within the inverted commas if the reported clause comes first:

• “I wasn’t ready for the competition,” she said.

Indirect speech:

In indirect speech, we don’t put a comma between the reporting verb and the reported clause and we omit the inverted quotes.

• She said that she hadn’t been ready for the competition.

In reported questions and exclamations, we remove the question mark and the exclamation mark.

• She asked him why he looked sad?
• She asked him why he looked sad.

Can we omit that in the reported speech?

Yes, we can omit that after reporting verbs such as he said , he replied , she suggested , etc.

• He said that he could do it. – He said he could do it.
• She replied that she was fed up with his misbehavior. – She replied she was fed up with his misbehavior.

List of reporting verbs

Reported speech requires a reporting verb such as “he said”, she “replied”, etc.

Here is a list of some common reporting verbs:

• Cry (meaning shout)
• Demonstrate
• Hypothesize
• Posit the view that
• Question the view that
• Want to know

In reported speech, we put the words of a speaker in a subordinate clause introduced by a reporting verb such as – “ he said ” and “ she asked “- with the required person and tense adjustments.

Related pages

• Reported speech exercise (mixed)
• Reported speech exercise (questions)
• Reported speech exercise (requests and commands)
• Reported speech lesson

• English Grammar
• Reported Speech

Reported Speech - Definition, Rules and Usage with Examples

Reported speech or indirect speech is the form of speech used to convey what was said by someone at some point of time. This article will help you with all that you need to know about reported speech, its meaning, definition, how and when to use them along with examples. Furthermore, try out the practice questions given to check how far you have understood the topic.

Table of Contents

Definition of reported speech, rules to be followed when using reported speech, table 1 – change of pronouns, table 2 – change of adverbs of place and adverbs of time, table 3 – change of tense, table 4 – change of modal verbs, tips to practise reported speech, examples of reported speech, check your understanding of reported speech, frequently asked questions on reported speech in english, what is reported speech.

Reported speech is the form in which one can convey a message said by oneself or someone else, mostly in the past. It can also be said to be the third person view of what someone has said. In this form of speech, you need not use quotation marks as you are not quoting the exact words spoken by the speaker, but just conveying the message.

Now, take a look at the following dictionary definitions for a clearer idea of what it is.

Reported speech, according to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary, is defined as “a report of what somebody has said that does not use their exact words.” The Collins Dictionary defines reported speech as “speech which tells you what someone said, but does not use the person’s actual words.” According to the Cambridge Dictionary, reported speech is defined as “the act of reporting something that was said, but not using exactly the same words.” The Macmillan Dictionary defines reported speech as “the words that you use to report what someone else has said.”

Reported speech is a little different from direct speech . As it has been discussed already, reported speech is used to tell what someone said and does not use the exact words of the speaker. Take a look at the following rules so that you can make use of reported speech effectively.

• The first thing you have to keep in mind is that you need not use any quotation marks as you are not using the exact words of the speaker.
• You can use the following formula to construct a sentence in the reported speech.
• You can use verbs like said, asked, requested, ordered, complained, exclaimed, screamed, told, etc. If you are just reporting a declarative sentence , you can use verbs like told, said, etc. followed by ‘that’ and end the sentence with a full stop . When you are reporting interrogative sentences, you can use the verbs – enquired, inquired, asked, etc. and remove the question mark . In case you are reporting imperative sentences , you can use verbs like requested, commanded, pleaded, ordered, etc. If you are reporting exclamatory sentences , you can use the verb exclaimed and remove the exclamation mark . Remember that the structure of the sentences also changes accordingly.
• Furthermore, keep in mind that the sentence structure , tense , pronouns , modal verbs , some specific adverbs of place and adverbs of time change when a sentence is transformed into indirect/reported speech.

Transforming Direct Speech into Reported Speech

As discussed earlier, when transforming a sentence from direct speech into reported speech, you will have to change the pronouns, tense and adverbs of time and place used by the speaker. Let us look at the following tables to see how they work.

Here are some tips you can follow to become a pro in using reported speech.

• Select a play, a drama or a short story with dialogues and try transforming the sentences in direct speech into reported speech.
• Write about an incident or speak about a day in your life using reported speech.
• Develop a story by following prompts or on your own using reported speech.

Given below are a few examples to show you how reported speech can be written. Check them out.

• Santana said that she would be auditioning for the lead role in Funny Girl.
• Blaine requested us to help him with the algebraic equations.
• Karishma asked me if I knew where her car keys were.
• The judges announced that the Warblers were the winners of the annual acapella competition.
• Binsha assured that she would reach Bangalore by 8 p.m.
• Kumar said that he had gone to the doctor the previous day.
• Lakshmi asked Teena if she would accompany her to the railway station.
• Jibin told me that he would help me out after lunch.
• The police ordered everyone to leave from the bus stop immediately.
• Rahul said that he was drawing a caricature.

Transform the following sentences into reported speech by making the necessary changes.

1. Rachel said, “I have an interview tomorrow.”

2. Mahesh said, “What is he doing?”

3. Sherly said, “My daughter is playing the lead role in the skit.”

4. Dinesh said, “It is a wonderful movie!”

5. Suresh said, “My son is getting married next month.”

6. Preetha said, “Can you please help me with the invitations?”

7. Anna said, “I look forward to meeting you.”

8. The teacher said, “Make sure you complete the homework before tomorrow.”

9. Sylvester said, “I am not going to cry anymore.”

10. Jade said, “My sister is moving to Los Angeles.”

Now, find out if you have answered all of them correctly.

1. Rachel said that she had an interview the next day.

2. Mahesh asked what he was doing.

3. Sherly said that her daughter was playing the lead role in the skit.

4. Dinesh exclaimed that it was a wonderful movie.

5. Suresh said that his son was getting married the following month.

6. Preetha asked if I could help her with the invitations.

7. Anna said that she looked forward to meeting me.

8. The teacher told us to make sure we completed the homework before the next day.

9. Sylvester said that he was not going to cry anymore.

10. Jade said that his sister was moving to Los Angeles.

What is reported speech?

What is the definition of reported speech.

Reported speech, according to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary, is defined as “a report of what somebody has said that does not use their exact words.” The Collins Dictionary defines reported speech as “speech which tells you what someone said, but does not use the person’s actual words.” According to the Cambridge Dictionary, reported speech is defined as “the act of reporting something that was said, but not using exactly the same words.” The Macmillan Dictionary defines reported speech as “the words that you use to report what someone else has said.”

What is the formula of reported speech?

You can use the following formula to construct a sentence in the reported speech. Subject said that (report whatever the speaker said)

Give some examples of reported speech.

Given below are a few examples to show you how reported speech can be written.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

Reported Speech – Free Exercise

Write the following sentences in indirect speech. Pay attention to backshift and the changes to pronouns, time, and place.

• Two weeks ago, he said, “I visited this museum last week.” → Two weeks ago, he said that   . I → he|simple past → past perfect|this → that|last …→ the … before
• She claimed, “I am the best for this job.” → She claimed that   . I → she|simple present→ simple past|this→ that
• Last year, the minister said, “The crisis will be overcome next year.” → Last year, the minister said that   . will → would|next …→ the following …
• My riding teacher said, “Nobody has ever fallen off a horse here.” → My riding teacher said that   . present perfect → past perfect|here→ there
• Last month, the boss explained, “None of my co-workers has to work overtime now.” → Last month, the boss explained that   . my → his/her|simple present→ simple past|now→ then

Rewrite the question sentences in indirect speech.

• She asked, “What did he say?” → She asked   . The subject comes directly after the question word.|simple past → past perfect
• He asked her, “Do you want to dance?” → He asked her   . The subject comes directly after whether/if |you → she|simple present → simple past
• I asked him, “How old are you?” → I asked him   . The subject comes directly after the question word + the corresponding adjective (how old)|you→ he|simple present → simple past
• The tourists asked me, “Can you show us the way?” → The tourists asked me   . The subject comes directly after whether/if |you→ I|us→ them
• The shop assistant asked the woman, “Which jacket have you already tried on?” → The shop assistant asked the woman   . The subject comes directly after the question word|you→ she|present perfect → past perfect

Rewrite the demands/requests in indirect speech.

• The passenger requested the taxi driver, “Stop the car.” → The passenger requested the taxi driver   . to + same wording as in direct speech
• The mother told her son, “Don’t be so loud.” → The mother told her son   . not to + same wording as in direct speech, but remove don’t
• The policeman told us, “Please keep moving.” → The policeman told us   . to + same wording as in direct speech ( please can be left off)
• She told me, “Don’t worry.” → She told me   . not to + same wording as in direct speech, but remove don’t
• The zookeeper told the children, “Don’t feed the animals.” → The zookeeper told the children   . not to + same wording as in direct speech, but remove don’t

How good is your English?

Find out with Lingolia’s free grammar test

Take the test!

Maybe later

What is Direct and Indirect Speech? with Examples

Published by

Olivia Drake

Direct and indirect speech are two different ways of reporting spoken or written language. Let’s delve into the details and provide some examples.

Direct Speech

Direct speech refers to the exact words someone said, often (but not always) enclosed in quotation marks. It is also known as quoted speech or direct discourse. This method is useful when you want to convey someone’s words verbatim.

For example:

Sarah said, “I’m feeling very happy today.””It’s a beautiful day,” commented John.In these examples, the words within the quotation marks are exactly what the speaker said.

Indirect Speech

Indirect speech, also known as reported speech or indirect discourse, is when you report what someone said, but not in their exact words. You’re paraphrasing their words. When you use indirect speech, you don’t use quotation marks.

Sarah said that she was feeling very happy that day.John commented that it was a beautiful day.In these examples, you’re reporting the essence of what the speaker said, but not using their exact words.

It’s also worth noting that in indirect speech, verb tenses, pronouns, and words expressing time and place may need to change to reflect the shift in perspective.

Here is an example:

Direct speech:  He said, “I am going to the store now.” Indirect speech:  He said that he was going to the store then.

Notice how “am” changed to “was” and “now” changed to “then”. This is because the time and context have shifted from when the speaker originally spoke to when the speaker’s words were reported.

Click here if you want to read more about direct and indirect speech.

Share this:

Leave a reply cancel reply, i’m olivia.

Welcome to my virtual classroom! Join me on a journey of language and learning, where we explore the wonders of English together. Let’s discover the joy of words and education!

Let’s connect

• [email protected]

Join the fun!

Stay updated with our latest tutorials and ideas by joining our newsletter.

Type your email…

Recent posts

Going to and present continuous for future plans and arrangements, difference between present simple vs. present continuous with example, questions in present continuous tense with examples, present continuous negative sentences with examples, present continuous sentences with examples, present perfect vs past perfect exercises with answers, discover more from fluent english grammar.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

English EFL

Reported speech

Tense changes in reported speech

Indirect speech (reported speech) focuses more on the content of what someone said rather than their exact words.  In indirect speech, the structure of the reported clause depends on whether the speaker is reporting a statement, a question or a command.

Normally, the tense in reported speech is one tense back in time from the tense in direct speech: She said, "I  am  tired." = She said that she  was  tired.

You do not need to change the tense if the reporting verb is in the present, or if the original statement was about something that is still true (but this is only for things which are general facts, and even then usually we like to change the tense) , e.g.

• He says  he has missed  the train but  he'll catch  the next one.
• We explained that  it is  very difficult to find our house.
• Direct speech: The sky is blue.
• Reported speech: She said (that) the sky  is/was  blue.

These modal verbs do not change in reported speech:  might, could, would, should, ought to :

• We explained, "It  could  be difficult to find our house." = We explained that it  could  be difficult to find our house.
• She said, "I  might  bring a friend to the party." = She said that she  might  bring a friend to the party.

Course Curriculum

• Direct and indirect speech 15 mins
• Tense changes in reported speech 20 mins
• Changing time and place in reported speech 20 mins
• Reported questions 20 mins
• Reporting verbs 20 mins
• Reporting orders and requests 15 mins
• Reporting hopes, intentions and promises 20 mins

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

FACT SHEET: President   Biden Takes Action to Protect American Workers and Businesses from China’s Unfair Trade   Practices

President Biden’s economic plan is supporting investments and creating good jobs in key sectors that are vital for America’s economic future and national security. China’s unfair trade practices concerning technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation are threatening American businesses and workers. China is also flooding global markets with artificially low-priced exports. In response to China’s unfair trade practices and to counteract the resulting harms, today, President Biden is directing his Trade Representative to increase tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 on $18 billion of imports from China to protect American workers and businesses.   The Biden-Harris Administration’s Investing in America agenda has already catalyzed more than $860 billion in business investments through smart, public incentives in industries of the future like electric vehicles (EVs), clean energy, and semiconductors. With support from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, CHIPS and Science Act, and Inflation Reduction Act, these investments are creating new American jobs in manufacturing and clean energy and helping communities that have been left behind make a comeback.   As President Biden says, American workers and businesses can outcompete anyone—as long as they have fair competition. But for too long, China’s government has used unfair, non-market practices. China’s forced technology transfers and intellectual property theft have contributed to its control of 70, 80, and even 90 percent of global production for the critical inputs necessary for our technologies, infrastructure, energy, and health care—creating unacceptable risks to America’s supply chains and economic security. Furthermore, these same non-market policies and practices contribute to China’s growing overcapacity and export surges that threaten to significantly harm American workers, businesses, and communities.   Today’s actions to counter China’s unfair trade practices are carefully targeted at strategic sectors—the same sectors where the United States is making historic investments under President Biden to create and sustain good-paying jobs—unlike recent proposals by Congressional Republicans that would threaten jobs and raise costs across the board. The previous administration’s trade deal with China  failed  to increase American exports or boost American manufacturing as it had promised. Under President Biden’s Investing in America agenda, nearly 800,000 manufacturing jobs have been created and new factory construction has doubled after both fell under the previous administration, and the trade deficit with China is the lowest in a decade—lower than any year under the last administration.   We will continue to work with our partners around the world to strengthen cooperation to address shared concerns about China’s unfair practices—rather than undermining our alliances or applying indiscriminate 10 percent tariffs that raise prices on all imports from all countries, regardless whether they are engaged in unfair trade. The Biden-Harris Administration recognizes the benefits for our workers and businesses from strong alliances and a rules-based international trade system based on fair competition.   Following an in-depth review by the United States Trade Representative, President Biden is taking action to protect American workers and American companies from China’s unfair trade practices. To encourage China to eliminate its unfair trade practices regarding technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation, the President is directing increases in tariffs across strategic sectors such as steel and aluminum, semiconductors, electric vehicles, batteries, critical minerals, solar cells, ship-to-shore cranes, and medical products.   Steel and Aluminum   The tariff rate on certain steel and aluminum products under Section 301 will increase from 0–7.5% to 25% in 2024.   Steel is a vital sector for the American economy, and American companies are leading the future of clean steel. Recently, the Biden-Harris Administration announced $6 billion for 33 clean manufacturing projects including for steel and aluminum, including the first new primary aluminum smelter in four decades, made possible by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. These investments will make the United States one of the first nations in the world to convert clean hydrogen into clean steel, bolstering the U.S. steel industry’s competitiveness as the world’s cleanest major steel producer.   American workers continue to face unfair competition from China’s non-market overcapacity in steel and aluminum, which are among the world’s most carbon intensive. China’s policies and subsidies for their domestic steel and aluminum industries mean high-quality, low-emissions U.S. products are undercut by artificially low-priced Chinese alternatives produced with higher emissions. Today’s actions will shield the U.S. steel and aluminum industries from China’s unfair trade practices.   Semiconductors   The tariff rate on semiconductors will increase from 25% to 50% by 2025.   China’s policies in the legacy semiconductor sector have led to growing market share and rapid capacity expansion that risks driving out investment by market-driven firms. Over the next three to five years, China is expected to account for almost half of all new capacity coming online to manufacture certain legacy semiconductor wafers. During the pandemic, disruptions to the supply chain, including legacy chips, led to price spikes in a wide variety of products, including automobiles, consumer appliances, and medical devices, underscoring the risks of overreliance on a few markets.   Through the CHIPS and Science Act, President Biden is making a nearly $53 billion investment in American semiconductor manufacturing capacity, research, innovation, and workforce. This will help counteract decades of disinvestment and offshoring that has reduced the United States’ capacity to manufacture semiconductors domestically. The CHIPS and Science Act includes $39 billion in direct incentives to build, modernize, and expand semiconductor manufacturing fabrication facilities as well as a 25% investment tax credit for semiconductor companies. Raising the tariff rate on semiconductors is an important initial step to promote the sustainability of these investments.   Electric Vehicles (EVs)   The tariff rate on electric vehicles under Section 301 will increase from 25% to 100% in 2024.   With extensive subsidies and non-market practices leading to substantial risks of overcapacity, China’s exports of EVs grew by 70% from 2022 to 2023—jeopardizing productive investments elsewhere. A 100% tariff rate on EVs will protect American manufacturers from China’s unfair trade practices.   This action advances President Biden’s vision of ensuring the future of the auto industry will be made in America by American workers. As part of the President’s Investing in America agenda, the Administration is incentivizing the development of a robust EV market through business tax credits for manufacturing of batteries and production of critical minerals, consumer tax credits for EV adoption, smart standards, federal investments in EV charging infrastructure, and grants to supply EV and battery manufacturing. The increase in the tariff rate on electric vehicles will protect these investments and jobs from unfairly priced Chinese imports.   Batteries, Battery Components and Parts, and Critical Minerals   The tariff rate on lithium-ion EV batteries will increase from 7.5%% to 25% in 2024, while the tariff rate on lithium-ion non-EV batteries will increase from 7.5% to 25% in 2026. The tariff rate on battery parts will increase from 7.5% to 25% in 2024.   The tariff rate on natural graphite and permanent magnets will increase from zero to 25% in 2026. The tariff rate for certain other critical minerals will increase from zero to 25% in 2024.   Despite rapid and recent progress in U.S. onshoring, China currently controls over 80 percent of certain segments of the EV battery supply chain, particularly upstream nodes such as critical minerals mining, processing, and refining. Concentration of critical minerals mining and refining capacity in China leaves our supply chains vulnerable and our national security and clean energy goals at risk. In order to improve U.S. and global resiliency in these supply chains, President Biden has invested across the U.S. battery supply chain to build a sufficient domestic industrial base. Through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Defense Production Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden-Harris Administration has invested nearly $20 billion in grants and loans to expand domestic production capacity of advanced batteries and battery materials. The Inflation Reduction Act also contains manufacturing tax credits to incentivize investment in battery and battery material production in the United States. The President has also established the American Battery Materials Initiative, which will mobilize an all-of-government approach to secure a dependable, robust supply chain for batteries and their inputs.   Solar Cells   The tariff rate on solar cells (whether or not assembled into modules) will increase from 25% to 50% in 2024.   The tariff increase will protect against China’s policy-driven overcapacity that depresses prices and inhibits the development of solar capacity outside of China. China has used unfair practices to dominate upwards of 80 to 90% of certain parts of the global solar supply chain, and is trying to maintain that status quo. Chinese policies and nonmarket practices are flooding global markets with artificially cheap solar modules and panels, undermining investment in solar manufacturing outside of China.   The Biden-Harris Administration has made historic investments in the U.S. solar supply chain, building on early U.S. government-enabled research and development that helped create solar cell technologies. The Inflation Reduction Act provides supply-side tax incentives for solar components, including polysilicon, wafers, cells, modules, and backsheet material, as well as tax credits and grant and loan programs supporting deployment of utility-scale and residential solar energy projects. As a result of President Biden’s Investing in America agenda, solar manufacturers have already announced nearly $17 billion in planned investment under his Administration—an 8-fold increase in U.S. manufacturing capacity, enough to supply panels for millions of homes each year by 2030.   Ship-to-Shore Cranes   The tariff rate on ship-to-shore cranes will increase from 0% to 25% in 2024.   The Administration continues to deliver for the American people by rebuilding the United States’ industrial capacity to produce port cranes with trusted partners. A 25% tariff rate on ship-to-shore cranes will help protect U.S. manufacturers from China’s unfair trade practices that have led to excessive concentration in the market. Port cranes are essential pieces of infrastructure that enable the continuous movement and flow of critical goods to, from, and within the United States, and the Administration is taking action to mitigate risks that could disrupt American supply chains. This action also builds off of ongoing work to invest in U.S. port infrastructure through the President’s Investing in America Agenda. This port security initiative includes bringing port crane manufacturing capabilities back to the United States to support U.S. supply chain security and encourages ports across the country and around the world to use trusted vendors when sourcing cranes or other heavy equipment.   Medical Products   The tariff rates on syringes and needles will increase from 0% to 50% in 2024. For certain personal protective equipment (PPE), including certain respirators and face masks, the tariff rates will increase from 0–7.5% to 25% in 2024. Tariffs on rubber medical and surgical gloves will increase from 7.5% to 25% in 2026.   These tariff rate increases will help support and sustain a strong domestic industrial base for medical supplies that were essential to the COVID-19 pandemic response, and continue to be used daily in every hospital across the country to deliver essential care. The federal government and the private sector have made substantial investments to build domestic manufacturing for these and other medical products to ensure American health care workers and patients have access to critical medical products when they need them. American businesses are now struggling to compete with underpriced Chinese-made supplies dumped on the market, sometimes of such poor quality that they may raise safety concerns for health care workers and patients.   Today’s announcement reflects President Biden’s commitment to always have the back of American workers. When faced with anticompetitive, unfair practices from abroad, the President will deploy any and all tools necessary to protect American workers and industry.  

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

By clicking Sign In, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Sign In Up with your social account

We won't post to any of your accounts

Your password must include:

• Min 8 characters
• Min 1 lowercase character
• Min 1 uppercase character
• Min 1 number

Get the latest celebrity news and entertainment news with exclusive stories, interviews, and pictures from Us Weekly.

Collections Expert Details How Titanic Artifacts Tell the Story of That Fateful Voyage

Richard Dreyfuss Accused of Misogynistic and Homophobic Remarks

Darius Rucker Shares How Woody Harrelson Saved His Life in New Memoir

Chris Martin Gives 65-Year-Old Fan a Ride to Coldplay Concert

Kourtney Kardashian Had ‘5 Failed IVF Cycles’ Before Conceiving Rocky

Johnny Wactor Was Protecting a Coworker When He Was Fatally Shot

Hannah Waddingham Keeps a ‘Little List’ of People Who Blocked Her Career

Celebrity weddings of 2023.

‘13 Reasons Why’ Star Dylan Minnette Explains Decision to Quit Acting

Elsa Pataky Has 2 Roles Alongside Husband Chris Hemsworth in 'Furiosa' 

Below Deck's Barbie Leaves in the Middle of the Night After Explosive Fight

'Below Deck' Ends With Captain Kerry Having Regrets About Promoting Ben

Jason Kelce Endorses a Taylor Swift Fan’s Joke About Travis’ Ripped Jeans

All American’s Daniel Ezra on the Episode 100 Scene He Knew He’d Get Right 

Jimmy Kimmel’s Son Billy, 7, Undergoes Third Open-Heart Surgery

Celebrity splits of 2023.

Lindsay Lohan Beams in Bikini Photo From Greece Vacation

Alex Rodriguez Shocked to See Daughter Daughter Natasha, 19, at NBA Game

Ryan Phillippe Says He and Ex Reese Witherspoon 'Were Hot' in Throwback Pic

Padma Lakshmi Shares Fitness and Diet Philosophy: ‘I Don’t Deprive Myself’

General election latest: National service 'will keep young people out of trouble', says PM - but laughs off idea of extra bank holiday

Labour's shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves has delivered her first major speech of the general election campaign, while Rishi Sunak continues to sing the virtues of his national service policy proposal.

Tuesday 28 May 2024 13:18, UK

• General Election 2024

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Election news

• PM says national service 'will keep young people out of trouble'
• Sunak laughs off voter's idea of bank holiday for St George's Day
• Reeves makes pitch to be next chancellor in major speech
• 'Not embarrassing': Minister shrugs off pro-Labour business letter
• Farage says Sunak 'can't stop boats' and stands by Islam remarks
• Watch moment Lib Dem leader toppled into lake
• Live reporting by  Ben Bloch

Expert analysis

• Tamara Cohen: The one point Labour will keep on hammering
• Rob Powell : Why latest Tory tax cut pledge is tricky for Labour

Election essentials

• Trackers: Who's leading polls? | Is PM keeping promises?
• Campaign Heritage: Memorable moments from elections gone by
• Subscribe to Sky's politics podcasts: Electoral Dysfunction | Politics At Jack And Sam's
• Read more: What happens next? | Which MPs are standing down? | Key seats to watch | How to register to vote | What counts as voter ID? | Check if your constituency's changing | Sky's coverage plans

Rishi Sunak is asked about one of the big talking points of the election thus far - his national service policy.

The prime minister says when it comes to service, "doing something that provides young people with skills and opportunities will transform their lives".

"I believe service gives you purpose," he says.

He also says it will be a "rite of passage" for young people that "just keeps them out of trouble".

He adds: "Whatever you might think of this idea, I hope you can see it is bold.

"It is transformational for our country."

UK 'has not prioritised maths' enough

He's also asked what the Tories will do to the education system to ensure skills gaps are filled.

The PM says "education is the most powerful way that we have to transform people's lives".

"I've been going on for a while now about the need for our society to prioritise maths because we're not going to be able to train people in the skills of the future, the jobs of the future, particularly in things like material science and engineering, unless we have more maths," he says.

"And we as a country have not prioritised maths in the way that we should have done."

He says he has created a new bursary for teachers who teach STEM subjects like maths.

By Tim Baker , political reporter

Reform UK's honorary president Nigel Farage has been speaking to Sky political correspondent Gurpreet Narwan in Dover.

Understandably, given the location, Mr Farage wanted to talk about migration.

He also reiterated comments he made to Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips, in which he said there were issues with young, Muslim, men being radicalised .

"I'm being accused of intolerance for calling out intolerance," Mr Farage says.

He highlighted Angela Rayner meeting a group in her constituency in which he claimed no other women were present.

Mr Farage said the marginalisation is something seen in "extreme forms" of Islam - and women have a "different place in their society".

This is something he "hadn't noticed in the Church of England".

Asked about his rhetoric being used by racist people, Mr Farage says "they are a tiny, tiny, irrelevant fringe minority" - and that he has "never had anything to do with them".

Reform UK's honorary president, Nigel Farage, announced last week that he will not be standing as an MP due to his desire to participate in the US election later this year.

We asked Reform's only MP, Lee Anderson, if he is disappointed that Nigel Farage is not standing as an MP, he replied that he is "chuffed to bits" because it means he can campaign much more in different seats.

"From a selfish point of view, it's much better for me," he said.

'I don't know what you've been smoking'

Sky's Wilfred Frost suggested that a party leader can still travel, and Mr Farage's decision to not stand is because he knows he wouldn't win.

But Mr Anderson replied: "What a load of rubbish you're talking - I don't know what you've been smoking recently."

He said the difference between Mr Farage and people like the PM and Labour leader is that they have safe seats with "whopping majorities", and so do not have to spend time in their constituencies in order to win.

So rather than fighting a seat, Mr Anderson said his time is "better spent" helping Reform candidates win across the country.

We heard a short while ago from Reform's only MP, Lee Anderson, and we asked what they would do to stop small boat crossings.

He replied that Nigel Farage and leader Richard Tice have been very clear, as has he over the last few years - and that the plan is to turn them back in the Channel, adding: "They need to be sent back the same day."

He said he spoke directly to people in migrant camps in Calais last year, and he claimed they told him that if the boats were being turned around, or they knew they'd be sent to a third country for processing, they would not make the journey.

"There's the deterrent - it's very simple."

Mr Anderson conceded that Reform UK will not form a majority government to implement the policy, but said: "We are going to win seats".

He said the popular vote will be "crucial", saying: "If we can get millions of people to vote Reform - even in places where we might not win or have a chance - it sends out a clear message to the Labour Party and the Conservative Party that the people in this great country of ours are very, very angry."

We've just had a Conservative Party response to the speech by shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves setting out her plans to grow the economy ( see the key points here ).

Work and Pensions Secretary Mel Stride said in a statement: "Labour will not match our commitment to increase personal tax thresholds for pensioners and will instead raise taxes by £2,094 on hard-working families.

"They do not have the courage or conviction to name a single tax they would cut."

It was the Conservative government that froze income tax thresholds, but he labelled Ms Reeves' refusal to commit to unfreezing them for pensioners a "retirement tax".

He added: "Only Rishi Sunak and the Conservatives have a clear plan, backed by bold action, to end the double tax on work and ensure pensioners who have worked hard their entire lives will have a new tax-free threshold to protect them."

The PM is "fine-tuning his pitch on bedrock Conservative issues", our political correspondent  Rob Powell says.

He says the PM is "really re-emphasising" some of his core themes like security and the economy during his campaign.

"I think this is the sort of format where Rishi Sunak does pretty well," he says of the Q&A he just held in Stoke-on-Trent (see previous posts).

"With the questions, he was across a lot of the detail, and he spoke about things like a technical education and giving people the skills they need to fill skills gaps."

Rob says he also talked about the triple lock pensions allowance announced by the Tories if they win the general election.

"I think the intention of that is very clearly to appeal to traditional Tory voters," he explains.

He goes on to say the PM is "venturing into some of the constituencies which will decide this election".

He spent yesterday in Tory strongholds under threat from the Lib Dems, while today is focused more on seats targeted by Labour.

"Of course it will be these constituencies that decide who is victorious come polling day," Rob adds.

"And I think that is why he is fine-tuning his pitch on those bedrock Conservative issues."

Rishi Sunak is asked why there is no bank holiday for St George's Day - and he bursts out laughing.

He replies that he is "asked this a lot" and "we all love to have days off".

But he says there are "lots of things that come along" in terms of the impact of bank holidays.

On the broader point, the PM says the gentleman was highlighting "taking a moment to celebrate and be proud of who we are and our country".

"Whether we need a bank holiday for that is a separate thing, but we should never be ashamed of our identity, of who we are as a country."

He goes on to say that there are "forces trying to divide us" and "trying to emphasise all the differences".

"I think that's sad," says, adding that it is "wrong" to say that we "should be ashamed of part of our history and our past".

"Of course no country is perfect, but I'm enormously proud of what our country has done for everyone, not just here but around the world."

The PM adds that we should be "proud of that" every day, not just on bank holidays.

He touts himself and his family as a key example, saying he is "enormously proud of what we stand for, I'm enormously proud of what we've achieved".

Rishi Sunak is out and about campaigning today, and this morning he is in Stoke-on-Trent delivering a campaign speech at a local business.

He said it is local businesses that means "Brexit Britain" has "powered ahead of the Netherlands, France, and Germany" to become "the fourth-largest exporter anywhere in the world".

The PM also thanked local Tory MP Jonathan Gullis, saying there is "no more vocal - some would say gobby - champion of Stoke-on-Trent in Westminster".

'I had your back'

More broadly, Mr Sunak acknowledged that "the last few years have been tough", pointing to the COVID pandemic and the war in Ukraine, but added: "I hope you saw during that time that I had your back."

He pointed to the furlough scheme and energy bill support, adding: "With all your resilience, hard work, and sacrifice, [we] have got through it."

The PM said inflation is down, wages are rising, the economy is growing, and the UK economy has "turned a corner" and "the plan is working".

In response to Labour saying they will bring stability back to government, the PM said the Tories have "restored economic stability because that's what you get with me, that's what you get with the Conservatives", and added that they will "always prioritise that".

Labour 'taking country for granted'

Turning to the election, he said the "choice" at the election is about "who do you trust to build on that foundation" for the future.

"The only certainty you're going to get with the Labour Party is that they're going to run out of money and put up your taxes - as clear as night follows day."

Mr Sunak also argued the world is a much more dangerous place, and "these uncertain times call for a bold plan, clear action so that we can secure the future of our country".

He touted his Rwanda plan, saying countries across Europe are considering similar schemes, but "not Keir Starmer", claiming he will "offer an amnesty to illegal migrants", making the UK a "magnet".

The PM claimed the Labour leader did not offer "a single new idea" in his speech yesterday because "he's taking the country for granted... without having the courage to tell you about his plans".

He closed by saying he will offer a "secure future" and appeals for voters to back his plan.

While Rachel Reeves was delivering a speech on the economy and Labour's plans to trigger more growth - the Liberal Democrat leader was out paddleboarding!

Sir Ed Davey knows that he has a challenge getting his party near the top of the news agenda, so one way of doing that is with entertaining photo opportunities and stunts - very much a Lib Dem tradition.

But more seriously, Lake Windermere has been the site of sewage dumping, and he wants to highlight that as part of the campaign to get the local vote.

We've just been hearing from our political correspondent Tamara Cohen  who attended shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves' speech in Derby.

The key takeaway she took from the speech was that "Labour is the party of business".

"Labour feel they can't say that enough or provide enough reassurance on that front."

The letter from over 120 business leaders backing Labour is "a sign of how far they've come", and a key argument is that Labour is now the "party of business".

Tamara also noted that Ms Reeves dodged a question from Sky's deputy political editor Sam Coates  about why no current FTSE 100 chief executives had signed the letter, however ( see post at 10.43 ).

The rest of the speech, she said, was an "attack on the Tories" and an effort to dismantle Rishi Sunak's arguments that the economy has done well, despite COVID and the war in Ukraine, by arguing that it is not resilient enough.

The Liz Truss mini-budget, and the consequences of it, will be "a point that Labour will hammering a lot during this campaign".

Tamara summarised the speech as saying: "Labour is the party of business, the Conservatives not the victims of events, but actually, she says, making those events have a worse impact on living standards than they needed to."

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free

Watch CBS News

Breaking Local News, First Alert Weather & Community Journalism

CBS News Live

Cbs news bay area: local news, weather & more.

• Nov 18, 2019
• CBS News Bay Area

Weather Where You Live

Find us on YouTube

Salesforce Tower Cams

Jefferson Awards

Top stories.

Sewage leak at Oakley senior living center forces residents out of their homes

At least 50 Oakley senior living center residents were forced out of their homes after a sewage leak was found in the building.

California family lost 2 sons during WWII. 80 years later their last child is home.

One family who lost two sons in World War II waited 80 years to bring their last child home from overseas thanks to a federal defense agency that accounts for fallen soldiers.

Woman found dead inside San Jose home where suspect was barricaded

San Jose police said a woman was found dead inside the home where a suspect had been barricaded and refusing to follow police commands.

5 people, including teen girl, shot in south Sacramento's Meadowview neighborhood, police say

Five people were shot in the Meadowview neighborhood of south Sacramento, police said Monday night.

San Francisco Mission District businesses feeling optimistic after busy holiday weekend

The bustling energy of Carnaval has settled at Baobab restaurant in the Mission District, leaving a sense of calm after an incredibly busy weekend.

Antioch Police Department's Traffic Unit currently staffed by a single officer

The Antioch Police Department relaunched its Traffic Unit, and it's currently a one-man team.

North Bay business struggling as it becomes harder to find insurance policies

It's no secret that insurance is becoming hard to find for a lot of homeowners, but it may be hitting businesses even harder.

San Francisco's Telegraph neighborhood seeing robotaxis struggle to navigate area

Residents in San Francisco's Telegraph neighborhood have noticed a surge in robotaxis and the ways the autonomous vehicles become stranded in the area.

Win a Family Four Pack of tickets to the June 14th Oakland Ballers game

Enter for your chance to win a Family Four Pack of tickets to the Oakland Ballers Friday, June 14th, vs. the Rocky Mountain Vibes.

CBS News California Investigates

Pothole damage claims on California freeways triple

A CBS News California investigation finds Caltrans only approved 1 out of every 25 damage claims from potholes and debris in the first half of 2023.

California freeways with the most damage claims

Caltrans is denying more freeway damage claims, approving fewer than 10% over the last five and a half years. How many have they approved in your county and which highways are the worst?

Sexually violent predators set for release into California communities, prompting concerns at state capitol

CBS News California has identified a spike in the number of "sexually violent predators" who are being granted conditional release by the Department of State Hospitals amid an ongoing struggle to find housing for the men. The reporting prompted several proposed changes to state law, but, one by one, the bills are dying inside California's capitol.

Watch: "Roots & Resilience: An AAPI Celebration"

Throughout AAPI Heritage Month in May, CBS News Bay Area has been featuring stories highlighting the Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities in and around San Francisco.

With grandson at the helm, famed bakery in SF Japantown celebrates 50 years

A Japanese-American bakery in San Francisco and its famous coffee crunch cake turn 50 years old this year. The man now running the bakery in the city's Japantown seeks to continue his grandfather's legacy.

Community comes together to revitalize Japantown language school

Kinmon Gakuen in San Francisco's Japantown is poised to undergo a major facelift after community leaders spearheaded a fundraising effort.

Japanese taiko drumming provides cultural connection for SJ percussion troupe

An ancient Japanese art form that connects people to their heritage with each pounding beat, taiko drumming was recently on full display at the 46th annual Nikkei Matsuri Festival​ in San Jose's Japantown​.

Martial arts studio in Daly City helping Filipinos connect to their culture

Filipino martial arts has a long tradition of combining culture, history, and language but has remained relatively unknown, even in the Philippines. A Bay Area martial arts master and his students hope to change that.

Project Earth

Bay Area researchers test how human hair can improve soil

Researchers at UC Berkeley and ecologists at the Presidio in San Francisco are digging into the question: can human hair supercharge the soil on our farms and fields and help us fight the impacts of climate change?

How human hair can help tackle challenges associated with climate change

Scientists are saying human hair could be the biggest sustainable textile on the planet that can be used to address some major issues linked to climate change.

San Jose enlisting the help of its residents to improve recycling rates

Most recyclables are ending up in landfills but one Bay Area city is hoping to remedy that situation with the help of its community.

Research scientists track valuable bats to help protect them as climate warms

Some people think they're spooky and sinister, but bats play a critical role in maintaining California's ecosystem as well as the state's valuable agriculture industry. Now climate change is threatening their populations.

Bay Area scientists use game-changing technology to help birds amid climate change

Bay Area scientists are using cutting-edge technology to better understand the decline in bird populations while finding ways to help species that are challenged.

NBA Hall of Famer Bill Walton dies at 71

"Bill Walton was truly one of a kind," NBA commissioner Adam Silver said in a statement.

Three-run, ninth-inning rally lifts Mets over Giants

The New York Mets over the San Francisco Giants 4-3 on Sunday to stop a five-game losing streak

Pro golfer Grayson Murray, 30, died by suicide, family says

The family of Grayson Murray said their son was loved and he is resting peacefully now.

JP Sears throws 6 strong innings, A's snap skid against Astros with 3-1 win

JP Sears allowed one unearned run and two hits in six solid innings and the A's beat the Astros 3-1 on Saturday.

Yastrzemski belts 3-run triple in 10th as Giants defeat skidding Mets

Mike Yastrzemski capped a five-run 10th inning Saturday with a 3-run triple and the Giants earned a 7-2 win over the skidding Mets.

Libertarians pick Chase Oliver as presidential nominee, rejecting Trump, RFK Jr.

The Libertarian Party nominated party activist Chase Oliver for president, rejecting Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s bid for the nomination.

Biden honors fallen U.S. troops on Memorial Day

President Joe Biden laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and is delivering his annual Memorial Day address.

Congress fails to install promised plaque to honor Jan. 6 police officers

Several House Democrats are wondering why a plaque to honor police officers who saved the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, wasn't installed by the deadline required by law.

New bill would criminalize "deepfake" porn

As more people become victims of so-called "deepfake porn," Congress is finally stepping in with a bill that would make it illegal to share nonconsensual intimate images online, with penalties of hefty fines and possible jail time. Jo Ling Kent spoke with those leading the effort.

Supporters of Oakland mayoral recall give update on progress

Supporters of the effort to recall Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao said they have collected more than 30,000 signatures on their way to getting the question placed on the November ballot.

First Alert Weather

Monday morning First Alert weather forecast with Jessica Burch - 5/27/24

After a cool start, expect clear conditions on Memorial Day, with highs in the 60s and 70s. Temperatures are expected to warm up later in the week. Jessica Burch has the forecast. Website: http://kpix.com/ YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/CBSSanFrancisco Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CBSSanFrancisco Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kpixtv/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/KPIXtv

First Alert Weather Sunday morning forecast 5-26-24

Meteorologist Darren Peck has the Carnaval parade forecast for San Francisco and the rest of the Bay Area.

First Alert Weather Saturday night forecast 5-25-24

Meteorologist Darren Peck has the Bay Area Memorial Day weekend forecast.

First Alert Weather Saturday morning forecast 5-25-24

with Darren Peck

Current Conditions

More Weather

Latest Videos

Oakley senior living center evacuated due to sewage leak

Lauren Toms reports on an Oakley senior living center whose residents were evacuated due to a sewage leak. Website: http://kpix.com/ YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/CBSSanFrancisco Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CBSSanFrancisco Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kpixtv/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/KPIXtv

San Francisco Carnaval, Memorial Day give Mission businesess a bump in sales

Jose Martinez reports on Mission District businesses that saw their sales jump thanks to San Francisco Carnaval and Memorial Day. Website: http://kpix.com/ YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/CBSSanFrancisco Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CBSSanFrancisco Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kpixtv/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/KPIXtv

PIX Now evening edition 5-27-24

CBS News Bay Area evening edition headlines for Monday, May 27, 2024. Watch full newscasts streamed at the CBS SF website or on the app. Website: http://kpix.com/ YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/CBSSanFrancisco Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CBSSanFrancisco Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kpixtv/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/KPIXtv

Businesses feeling the pressure as getting insurance becomes a struggle

John Ramos reports on how North Bay businesses are struggling due to insurance carriers leaving California. Website: http://kpix.com/ YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/CBSSanFrancisco Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CBSSanFrancisco Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kpixtv/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/KPIXtv

Antioch's newly relaunched Police Department Traffic Unit has a single officer

WIlson Walker reports on the staffing issues the Antioch Police Department is experiencing. Website: http://kpix.com/ YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/CBSSanFrancisco Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CBSSanFrancisco Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kpixtv/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/KPIXtv

CBS News Bay Area Interviews

Nightmares and chronic illness: Researchers look at potential link

A new study published in the journal eClinicalMedicine looks at how the frequency and intensity of nightmares and 'daymares' could be linked to lupus or other autoimmune diseases. CBS News Bay Area anchor Ryan Yamamoto asks Dr. Rafael Pelayo from Stanford's Sleep Disorders Clinic about how certain chronic conditions could trigger more vivid and frequent nightmares

Drowning deaths on the rise post-pandemic

The CDC released a new report on the increase of drowning deaths after the COVID-19 pandemic. With summer right around the corner, CBS News Bay Area anchor Ryan Yamamoto spoke to Dr. Ryan Ribeira from Stanford Health Care about what's driving the increase, and ways to protect you and your family.

Stanford treats first U.S. cancer patient using breakthrough treatment for melanoma

The Food and Drug Administration approved a cell-based therapy for patients who have tried immunotherapy and have no other viable options. Stanford treated the first patient in the country using that therapy. CBS News Bay Area anchor Ryan Yamamoto asks Dr. Allison Betof Warner from Stanford Health Care how the treatment works, and why it's considered such a breakthrough

In Focus: Lung cancer in Asian American women

Elizabeth Cook spoke with Dr. Heather Wakelee with Stanford thoracic oncology about a study showing most Asian American women with lung cancer have never smoked. (5-10-24)

Stanford doctor discusses avian flu outbreaks

The FDA announced that traces of the bird flu are showing in samples of grocery store milk. Tests by the FDA show that pasteurization does work to kill off bird flu in milk, but retail sales of raw milk are legal in California. CBS News Bay Area anchor Nicole Zaloumis asks Dr. Abraar Karan from Stanford Health Care if we should stay away from consumption of raw milk, and if the virus is evolving to infect other animals and potentially people

Stanford doctor discusses counterfeit Botox tied to illnesses

The FDA says counterfeit Botox caused an outbreak of botulism-like illnesses in 9 states. Dr. Zakia Rahman, dermatologist at Stanford Health Care, explains what botulism is, how serious it can be, and the symptoms

KPIX+-TV Schedule

View All Programs

Our Newsletter

Sf & peninsula news.

San Francisco firefighters rescue dog chased off cliff by raccoons

Firefighters rescued a dog that fell off a cliff after being chased by raccoons on Sunday night in San Francisco's Potrero Hill neighborhood, fire officials said.

Event held at USS San Francisco Memorial to remember crew's sacrifice

On Sunday morning in San Francisco, there was a gathering to remember the ultimate sacrifice made by the crew of the WWII ship named for the City.

Memorial Day weekend traveling off to a record-breaking start

With Memorial Day Weekend underway, the start of the summer travel season is underway – and it's off to a busy start on the roads and in the sky.

East Bay News

Fire that destroyed warehouse at Oakland lumber yard contained; cause under investigation

Firefighters in Oakland remained on scene Monday after containing a 4-alarm fire that broke out at a lumber yard Sunday night, destroying a warehouse.

San Francisco Bay Area to hold several events to commemorate Memorial Day

The Bay Area will be commemorating Memorial Day with several events throughout the region, including the lighting of the beacon atop Mount Diablo.

Pedestrians crowded off Oakland sidewalk by growing homeless camp

Business owners and residents in one Oakland neighborhood say a growing homeless encampment is creating safety concerns.

South Bay News

1 dead in San Jose traffic collision Monday afternoon

Police are investigating a fatal crash Monday afternoon in North San Jose that has closed a stretch of westbound Montague Expressway.

Man found fatally shot in South San Jose apartment; city's 15th homicide of the year

San Jose police have launched a homicide investigation and are searching for a suspect after a man was found fatally shot in an apartment over the weekend, in the city's 15th homicide of the year.

Driver dies in solo-vehicle crash in Santa Cruz Mountains Sunday morning

A 45-year-old Santa Cruz man died in a collision Sunday morning while traveling northbound on Graham Hill Road, according to the CHP.

North Bay News

Fairfield police allege local gift shop was front for criminal activity

Fairfield authorities are pursuing fines and closure proceedings against a local gift shop that police allege was a front for criminal activity.

Driver arrested after lengthy Sonoma County chase that ended in crash

Sonoma County authorities arrested a motorist for alleged reckless driving after a lengthy pursuit over the weekend.

Dedicated fans return to BottleRock for much more than music

BottleRock boasts great food, wine and a star-studded music lineup which draws people back to the event every year.

Bay Area Bridge Builders

San Francisco Carnaval shares culture, fun times with Bay Area families

San Francisco came alive with the vibrant colors, sounds, and traditions of Carnaval 2024, marking a highly anticipated event for the city.

Watch: Carnaval San Francisco Grand Parade

The Carnaval Grand Parade returned to the streets of San Francisco's Mission District featuring samba dancers, lowriders and floats and CBS New Bay Area brought you all the action live.

SF Carnaval to have Nobel Peace Prize winner lead parade as grand marshal

The grand marshal of Carnaval is a champion of indigenous rights, and people in the Bay Area cite her as an inspiration in their own fights to preserve indigenous cultures.

Every senior at Oakland high school accepted to four-year colleges

For the third straight year every senior at Cristo Rey De La Salle EastBay High School has been accepted to a four-year university.

Young parents graduate together at San Jose State University

Two graduate students at San Jose State University will celebrate completing their master's degrees together on Wednesday - and they'll be accompanied by their infant daughter.

Latest Stories

UC Davis Health one of first in U.S. to offer this cutting-edge tech for knee pain

The Misha knee system is an implantable tool that is a shock absorber for the knee.

Children at San Bruno school sickened after accidental release of pepper spray, tear gas at nearby jail

A release of tear gas and pepper spray during a training exercise at the San Francisco County Jail in San Bruno on Tuesday led to students at a nearby elementary school to become sick, officials said.

California bill targeting social media addiction in teens passes State Senate

In a bipartisan vote, the California State Senate approved a bill from a Bay Area lawmaker aimed at targeting social media addiction among children and teens.

Panera's Charged Lemonade cited in lawsuit over teen's cardiac arrest

Panera faces another lawsuit over a highly caffeinated beverage that the restaurant chain said it would phase out.

San Mateo teen uses AI to develop website connecting people to mental health service

A high school junior from San Mateo has created a platform she created to help people of all ages access mental health resources powered by artificial intelligence.

Bay Area Crime

Our stories define us.

Oakland Unified copes with shocking rise in district's homeless student population

Ever since the COVID-19 pandemic, the Oakland Unified School District has seen an alarming spike in the number of unhoused students in the school system who deal with a host of challenges far beyond what most children face.

• Nov 28, 2023

VR 360 View: Meteorologist Jessica Burch takes flight with the Blue Angels

Meteorologist and CBS News Bay Area's resident pilot Lt. Jessica Burch got a treat during Fleet Week, taking to the skies with one of the Blue Angels.

• Oct 13, 2023

VR 360 View: Devastating wildfire compels family to adopt a new lifestyle among the Redwoods

A Bay Area man discovered his devastating loss left him with a new opportunity to rethink how he lives -- follow his journey in virtual reality, 360-degree video.

• Mar 8, 2023

Study: Colorectal cancer patients could skip harsh radiation therapy

A groundbreaking medical study involving the UCSF Medical Center has shown some colorectal cancer patients can safely skip radiation treatment and enjoy a potentially higher quality of life.

• Aug 18, 2023

VR 360 View: The high-stakes world of San Francisco's bar pilots

Every day, San Francisco bar pilot Captain Zach Kellerman goes through what might just be the world's most dangerous commute.

• May 24, 2023

Worldwide alert warns of violence against LGBTQ community

While the State Department bulletin is meant for overseas travel, there is concern of a domestic threat from ISIS, two sources told CBS News.

Bay Area political leaders Hope Wood, Peggy Moore killed in SoCal crash

Two prominent Bay Area political figures died Friday night when the pickup they were in collided with a car in rural San Diego County.

California sues Rocklin Unified School District over "discriminatory" gender notification policy

A Northern California school district is being sued by the state over allegations the district failed to carry out corrective actions in a controversial gender notification policy adopted last summer.

12% of LGBTQ youth attempted suicide last year, nationwide survey says

More than a third of LGBTQ young people seriously considered suicide in the past year, the survey found.

Venerable San Francisco LGBTQ bar the Stud reopens at new location

One of San Francisco's oldest LGBTQ bars, on Saturday the Stud re-opened it's doors for the first time in four years at a new location.

Latest Galleries

Aurora borealis seen from Marin County

The northern lights were visible in the Bay Area thanks to a powerful geomagnetic storm.

Photos: Funk-metal super group Infectious Grooves headlines rare Bay Area show

Long-dormant Suicidal Tendencies side project Infectious Grooves featuring current Metallica bassist Robert Trujillo played a ferocious set for fans at the UC Theatre in Berkeley Saturday.

Photos: Green Day headlines San Francisco's famed Fillmore for global climate concert

Bay Area pop-punk heroes Green Day played an intimate show at the Fillmore in San Francisco Tuesday for a UN-backed global climate concert.

Photos: Bruce Springsteen delivers marathon set for packed Chase Center in San Francisco

Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band played the first of two long-delayed, sold-out concerts at San Francisco's Chase Center Thursday, delivering an epic 29-song set.

Photos: Soul band the Black Pumas headline sold-out show at Fox Theater

Austin-bred band the Black Pumas brought their mix of soul, jazz funk and simmering R&B to the Fox Theatre in Oakland for a packed, sold-out show on Feb. 8.

Mill Valley resident brings people together through his heartfelt art projects

A Mill Valley man known for his public art projects that bring his neighbors together is being honored for providing gifts to his community.

San Francisco maker nonprofit Humanmade working to bounce back from fire

A first-of-its-kind San Francisco program that trains the next generation of makers is closed temporarily because of a fire, but Its founder is working to safely reopen as soon as possible.

Teaching about ocean history, preservation a decades-long mission for Pacifica educator

A Pacifica woman is being recognized for leading an annual ocean education program at a coastal school for over 30 years.

Japantown rebounds with help from San Francisco native's community district

A San Francisco native is helping keep alive the city's historic Japantown, one of only three left in the U.S.

Peninsula man cuts short his career to help homeless people put best face forward

A Redwood City man changed his career path - from running Stanford's Digital Language Lab to going to beauty school - so he could serve his community in a way that's more meaningful to him.

Students Rising Above

Students Rising Above scholar recalls growing up with undocumented immigrant parents

It's hard enough to graduate from one of the most prestigious schools in the country when you're the first in your family to go to college. Imagine doing that while you're also trying to protect your parents from being deported?

Hard-working student shoulders a load working while attending Ivy League college

Some students who are the first in their families to go to college face the challenge of balancing a rigorous academic load while still working to help support their family back home.

College student gives back to program that changed his life

A onetime pupil has now become a student advisor, giving back after years of mentorship led him to success.

• Dec 1, 2023

San Rafael student sees the world, but remembers his roots

Police departments all over the country are having a hard time finding new officers, but one Bay Area student is criss-crossing the world while preparing for a career in law enforcement here at home.

• Nov 3, 2023

Santa Rosa college graduate multi-tasking her way to a master's degree, law school

When most people graduate from college, they tend to focus on one job. But this month's Students Rising Above scholar is currently juggling multiple workplace assignments.

• Oct 5, 2023

2021-001-FB-FBR

Former President Trump’s suspension

The Board has upheld Facebook's decision, on 7 January 2021, to restrict then-President Donald Trump's access to posting content on his Facebook Page and Instagram account.

Type of Decision

Policies and topics, region/countries.

To read this decision as a PDF, click here .

Case summary

The Board has upheld Facebook’s decision on January 7, 2021, to restrict then-President Donald Trump’s access to posting content on his Facebook page and Instagram account.

However, it was not appropriate for Facebook to impose the indeterminate and standardless penalty of indefinite suspension. Facebook’s normal penalties include removing the violating content, imposing a time-bound period of suspension, or permanently disabling the page and account.

The Board insists that Facebook review this matter to determine and justify a proportionate response that is consistent with the rules that are applied to other users of its platform. Facebook must complete its review of this matter within six months of the date of this decision. The Board also made policy recommendations for Facebook to implement in developing clear, necessary, and proportionate policies that promote public safety and respect freedom of expression.

About the case

Elections are a crucial part of democracy. On January 6, 2021, during the counting of the 2020 electoral votes, a mob forcibly entered the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. This violence threatened the constitutional process. Five people died and many more were injured during the violence. During these events, then-President Donald Trump posted two pieces of content.

At 4:21 pm Eastern Standard Time, as the riot continued, Mr. Trump posted a video on Facebook and Instagram:

I know your pain. I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side, but you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can't play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You're very special. You've seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel. But go home and go home in peace.

At 5:41 pm Eastern Standard Time, Facebook removed this post for violating its Community Standard on Dangerous Individuals and Organizations.

At 6:07 pm Eastern Standard Time, as police were securing the Capitol, Mr. Trump posted a written statement on Facebook:

These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love in peace. Remember this day forever!

At 6:15 pm Eastern Standard Time, Facebook removed this post for violating its Community Standard on Dangerous Individuals and Organizations. It also blocked Mr. Trump from posting on Facebook or Instagram for 24 hours.

On January 7, after further reviewing Mr. Trump’s posts, his recent communications off Facebook, and additional information about the severity of the violence at the Capitol, Facebook extended the block “indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete.”

On January 20, with the inauguration of President Joe Biden, Mr. Trump ceased to be the president of the United States.

On January 21, Facebook announced it had referred this case to the Board. Facebook asked whether it correctly decided on January 7 to prohibit Mr. Trump’s access to posting content on Facebook and Instagram for an indefinite amount of time. The company also requested recommendations about suspensions when the user is a political leader.

In addition to the two posts on January 6, Facebook previously found five violations of its Community Standards in organic content posted on the Donald J. Trump Facebook page, three of which were within the last year. While the five violating posts were removed, no account-level sanctions were applied.

Key findings

The Board found that the two posts by Mr. Trump on January 6 severely violated Facebook’s Community Standards and Instagram’s Community Guidelines. “We love you. You’re very special” in the first post and “great patriots” and “remember this day forever” in the second post violated Facebook’s rules prohibiting praise or support of people engaged in violence.

The Board found that, in maintaining an unfounded narrative of electoral fraud and persistent calls to action, Mr. Trump created an environment where a serious risk of violence was possible. At the time of Mr. Trump’s posts, there was a clear, immediate risk of harm and his words of support for those involved in the riots legitimized their violent actions. As president, Mr. Trump had a high level of influence. The reach of his posts was large, with 35 million followers on Facebook and 24 million on Instagram.

Given the seriousness of the violations and the ongoing risk of violence, Facebook was justified in suspending Mr. Trump’s accounts on January 6 and extending that suspension on January 7.

However, it was not appropriate for Facebook to impose an ‘indefinite’ suspension.

It is not permissible for Facebook to keep a user off the platform for an undefined period, with no criteria for when or whether the account will be restored.

In applying this penalty, Facebook did not follow a clear, published procedure. ‘Indefinite’ suspensions are not described in the company’s content policies. Facebook’s normal penalties include removing the violating content, imposing a time-bound period of suspension, or permanently disabling the page and account.

It is Facebook’s role to create necessary and proportionate penalties that respond to severe violations of its content policies. The Board’s role is to ensure that Facebook’s rules and processes are consistent with its content policies, its values and its human rights commitments.

In applying a vague, standardless penalty and then referring this case to the Board to resolve, Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities. The Board declines Facebook’s request and insists that Facebook apply and justify a defined penalty.

The Oversight Board’s decision

The Oversight Board has upheld Facebook’s decision to suspend Mr. Trump’s access to post content on Facebook and Instagram on January 7, 2021. However, as Facebook suspended Mr. Trump’s accounts ‘indefinitely,’ the company must reassess this penalty.

Within six months of this decision, Facebook must reexamine the arbitrary penalty it imposed on January 7 and decide the appropriate penalty. This penalty must be based on the gravity of the violation and the prospect of future harm. It must also be consistent with Facebook’s rules for severe violations, which must, in turn, be clear, necessary and proportionate.

If Facebook decides to restore Mr. Trump’s accounts, the company should apply its rules to that decision, including any changes made in response to the Board’s policy recommendations below. In this scenario, Facebook must address any further violations promptly and in accordance with its established content policies.

A minority of the Board emphasized that Facebook should take steps to prevent the repetition of adverse human rights impacts and ensure that users who seek reinstatement after suspension recognize their wrongdoing and commit to observing the rules in the future.

When it referred this case to the Board, Facebook specifically requested “observations or recommendations from the Board about suspensions when the user is a political leader.”

In a policy advisory statement, the Board made a number of recommendations to guide Facebook’s policies in regard to serious risks of harm posed by political leaders and other influential figures.

The Board stated that it is not always useful to draw a firm distinction between political leaders and other influential users, recognizing that other users with large audiences can also contribute to serious risks of harm.

While the same rules should apply to all users, context matters when assessing the probability and imminence of harm. When posts by influential users pose a high probability of imminent harm, Facebook should act quickly to enforce its rules. Although Facebook explained that it did not apply its ‘newsworthiness’ allowance in this case, the Board called on Facebook to address widespread confusion about how decisions relating to influential users are made. The Board stressed that considerations of newsworthiness should not take priority when urgent action is needed to prevent significant harm.

Facebook should publicly explain the rules that it uses when it imposes account-level sanctions against influential users. These rules should ensure that when Facebook imposes a time-limited suspension on the account of an influential user to reduce the risk of significant harm, it will assess whether the risk has receded before the suspension ends. If Facebook identifies that the user poses a serious risk of inciting imminent violence, discrimination or other lawless action at that time, another time-bound suspension should be imposed when such measures are necessary to protect public safety and proportionate to the risk.

The Board noted that heads of state and other high officials of government can have a greater power to cause harm than other people. If a head of state or high government official has repeatedly posted messages that pose a risk of harm under international human rights norms, Facebook should suspend the account for a period sufficient to protect against imminent harm. Suspension periods should be long enough to deter misconduct and may, in appropriate cases, include account or page deletion.

In other recommendations, the Board proposed that Facebook:

• Rapidly escalate content containing political speech from highly influential users to specialized staff who are familiar with the linguistic and political context. These staff should be insulated from political and economic interference, as well as undue influence.
• Dedicate adequate resourcing and expertise to assess risks of harm from influential accounts globally.
• Produce more information to help users understand and evaluate the process and criteria for applying the newsworthiness allowance, including how it applies to influential accounts. The company should also clearly explain the rationale, standards and processes of the cross check review, and report on the relative error rates of determinations made through cross check compared with ordinary enforcement procedures.
• Undertake a comprehensive review of Facebook’s potential contribution to the narrative of electoral fraud and the exacerbated tensions that culminated in the violence in the United States on January 6. This should be an open reflection on the design and policy choices that Facebook has made that may allow its platform to be abused.
• Make clear in its corporate human rights policy how it collects, preserves and, where appropriate, shares information to assist in investigation and potential prosecution of grave violations of international criminal, human rights and humanitarian law.
• Explain its strikes and penalties process for restricting profiles, pages, groups and accounts in Facebook’s Community Standards and Instagram’s Community Guidelines.
• Include the number of profile, page, and account restrictions in its transparency reporting, with information broken down by region and country.
• Provide users with accessible information on how many violations, strikes and penalties have been assessed against them, and the consequences that will follow future violations.
• Develop and publish a policy that governs Facebook’s response to crises or novel situations where its regular processes would not prevent or avoid imminent harm. This guidance should set appropriate parameters for such actions, including a requirement to review its decision within a fixed time.

*Case summaries provide an overview of the case and do not have precedential value.

Full case decision

In this case, Facebook asked the Board to answer two questions:

Considering Facebook’s values, specifically its commitment to voice and safety, did it correctly decide on January 7, 2021, to prohibit Donald J. Trump’s access to posting content on Facebook and Instagram for an indefinite amount of time?

In addition to the board’s determination on whether to uphold or overturn the indefinite suspension, Facebook welcomes observations or recommendations from the board about suspensions when the user is a political leader.

1. Decision summary

The Board upholds Facebook’s decision on January 7, 2021, to restrict then-President Donald Trump’s access to posting content on his Facebook page and Instagram account.

The Board insists that Facebook review this matter to determine and justify a proportionate response that is consistent with the rules that are applied to other users of its platform. Facebook must complete its review of this matter within six months of the date of this decision. The Board also makes policy recommendations for Facebook to implement in developing clear, necessary, and proportionate policies that promote public safety and respect freedom of expression.

2. Case description

Elections are a crucial part of democracy. They allow people throughout the world to govern and to resolve social conflicts peacefully. In the United States of America, the Constitution says the president is selected by counting electoral college votes. On January 6, 2021, during the counting of the 2020 electoral votes, a mob forcibly entered the Capitol where the electoral votes were being counted and threatened the constitutional process. Five people died and many more were injured during the violence.

Prior to January 6, then-President Donald Trump had asserted without evidence that the November 2020 presidential election had been stolen. Legal claims brought by Mr. Trump and others of election fraud were rejected in over 70 cases , and the then-Attorney General, after investigation, stated that there had been no fraud “on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” Nevertheless, Mr. Trump continued to make these unfounded claims, including through using Facebook, and referred to a rally planned for January 6:

• On December 19, 2020, the Trump Facebook page posted: “Peter Navarro releases 36-page report alleging election fraud 'more than sufficient' to swing victory to Trump - A great report by Peter. Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”
• On January 1, 2021, the Trump Facebook page posted: “The BIG Protest Rally in Washington, D.C., will take place at 11.00 A.M. on January 6th. Locational details to follow. StopTheSteal!”

On the morning of January 6, 2021, Mr. Trump attended a rally near the White House and gave a speech. He continued to make unfounded claims that he won the election and suggested that Vice President Mike Pence should overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s victory, a power Mr. Pence did not have. He also stated, “we will stop the steal,” and “we’re going to the Capitol.”

Many of those attending the rally then marched to the U.S. Capitol Building, where they joined other protestors already gathered. Many of the protestors attacked Capitol security, violently entered the building, and rioted through the Capitol. Mr. Pence and other Members of Congress were placed at serious risk of targeted violence. Five people died and many were injured.

During these events, Mr. Trump posted a video and a statement to his Facebook page (which had at least 35 million followers), and the video was also shared to his Instagram account (which had at least 24 million followers). The posts stated the 2020 election was “stolen” and “stripped away.” The posts also praised and supported those who were at the time rioting inside the Capitol, while also calling on them to remain peaceful. Both the Facebook page and the Instagram account show a blue tick next to the page or account name, meaning that Facebook has confirmed that the account is the “authentic presence of the public figure” it represents.

In the one-minute video, posted at 4:21 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST), as the riot continued, Mr. Trump said:

At 5:41 pm EST, Facebook removed this post for violating its Community Standard on Dangerous Individuals and Organizations.

Mr. Trump posted the following written statement at 6:07 pm EST, as police were securing the Capitol:

At 6:15 pm EST, Facebook removed this post for violating its Community Standard on Dangerous Individuals and Organizations and imposed a 24-hour block on Mr. Trump’s ability to post on Facebook or Instagram.

On January 7, 2021 , after further reviewing Mr. Trump's posts, his recent communications off Facebook, and additional information about the severity of the violence at the Capitol, Facebook extended the block “indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete. ” Facebook cited Mr. Trump's “use of our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government."

In the days following January 6, some of the participants in the riot stated publicly that they did so at the behest of the president. One participant was quoted in the Washington Post (January 16, 2021): “I thought I was following my president. . . . He asked us to fly there. He asked us to be there. So I was doing what he asked us to do.” A video captured a rioter on the steps of the Capitol screaming at a police officer, “We were invited here! We were invited by the president of the United States!”

The District of Columbia declared a public emergency on January 6 and extended it until January 21 that same day. On January 27, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin warning of a “heightened threat environment across the United States, which DHS believes will persist in the weeks following the successful Presidential Inauguration.” It stated that “drivers to violence will remain through early 2021 and some [Domestic Violent Extremists] may be emboldened by the January 6, 2021 breach of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. to target elected officials and government facilities.”

While the posts that Facebook found to violate its content policies were removed, Mr. Trump’s Facebook page and Instagram account remain publicly accessible on Facebook and Instagram. There is no notice on the page or account of the restrictions that Facebook imposed. On January 21, 2021, Facebook announced that it had referred the case to the Oversight Board.

In addition to the two posts on January 6, 2021, Facebook previously found five violations of its Community Standards in organic content posted on the Donald J. Trump Facebook page, three within the last year. The five violating posts were removed, but no account-level sanctions were applied. In response to the Board’s question on whether any strikes had been applied, Facebook said that the page received one strike for a post in August 2020 which violated its COVID-19 Misinformation and Harm policy. Facebook did not explain why other violating content it had removed did not result in strikes.

Facebook has a “newsworthiness allowance” which allows content that violates its policies to remain on the platform, if Facebook considers the content “newsworthy and in the public interest.” Facebook asserted that it “has never applied the newsworthiness allowance to content posted by the Trump Facebook page or Instagram account.”

Responding to the Board’s questions, Facebook disclosed that “there were 20 pieces of content from Trump’s Facebook Page and Instagram Account that content reviewers or automation initially marked as violating Facebook’s Community Standards but were ultimately determined to not be violations.”

Facebook told the Board it applies a “cross check” system to some “high profile” accounts to “minimize the risk of errors in enforcement.” For these accounts, Facebook sends content found to violate its Community Standards for additional internal review. After this escalation, Facebook decides if the content is violating. Facebook told the Board that “it has never had a general rule that is more permissive for content posted by political leaders.” While the same general rules apply, the “cross check” system means that decision-making processes are different for some “high profile” users.

3. Authority and scope

The Oversight Board has the power to review a broad set of questions referred by Facebook (Charter Article 2, Section 1; Bylaws Article 2, Section 2.1). Decisions on these questions are binding and may include policy advisory statements with recommendations. These recommendations are non-binding but Facebook must respond to them (Charter Article 3, Section 4). The Board is an independent grievance mechanism to address disputes in a transparent and principled manner.

4. Relevant standards

Under the Oversight Board’s Charter, it must consider all cases in light of the following standards:

I. Facebook’s content policies:

Facebook has Community Standards that describe what users are not allowed to post on Facebook, and Instagram has Community Guidelines that describe what users are not allowed to post on Instagram.

Facebook’s Community Standard on Dangerous Individuals and Organizations prohibits “content that praises, supports, or represents events that Facebook designates as terrorist attacks, hate events, mass murders or attempted mass murders, serial murders, hate crimes and violating events.” It also prohibits “content that praises any of the above organizations or individuals or any acts committed by them," referring to hate organizations and criminal organizations, among others.

Instagram’s Community Guidelines state that “Instagram is not a place to support or praise terrorism, organized crime, or hate groups,” and provide a link to the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations Community Standard.

Facebook’s Community Standard on Violence and Incitement states it “remove[s] content, disable[s] accounts, and work[s] with law enforcement when [it] believe[s] there is a genuine risk of physical harm or direct threats to public safety.” The Standard specifically prohibits: “Statements advocating for high-severity violence” and “Any content containing statements of intent, calls for action, conditional or aspirational statements, or advocating for violence due to voting, voter registration or the administration or outcome of an election.” It also prohibits “Misinformation and unverifiable rumors that contribute to the risk of imminent violence or physical harm.”

Instagram’s Community Guidelines state that Facebook removes “content that contains credible threats” and “serious threats of harm to public and personal safety aren’t allowed.” Both sections include links to the Violence and Incitement Community Standard.

Facebook’s Terms of Service state that Facebook “may suspend or permanently disable access” to an account if it determines that a user has “clearly, seriously, or repeatedly” breached its terms or policies. The introduction to the Community Standards notes that “consequences for violating our Community Standards vary depending on the severity of the violation and the person's history on the platform.”

Instagram’s Terms of Use state that Facebook “can refuse to provide or stop providing all or part of the Service to you (including terminating or disabling your access to the Facebook Products and Facebook Company Products) immediately to protect our community or services, or if you create risk or legal exposure for us, violate these Terms of Use or our policies (including our Instagram Community Guidelines).” Instagram’s Community Guidelines state “Overstepping these boundaries may result in deleted content, disabled accounts, or other restrictions.”

II. Facebook’s values:

Facebook has five values outlined in the introduction to the Community Standards which it claims guide what is allowed on its platforms. Three of these values are “Voice,” “Safety,” and “Dignity.”

Facebook describes “Voice” as wanting “people to be able to talk openly about the issues that matter to them, even if some may disagree or find them objectionable. […] Our commitment to expression is paramount, but we recognize that the Internet creates new and increased opportunities for abuse.”

Facebook describes “Safety” as Facebook’s commitment to “mak[e] Facebook a safe place” and states that “Expression that threatens people has the potential to intimidate, exclude or silence others and isn’t allowed on Facebook.”

Facebook describes “Dignity” as its belief that “all people are equal in dignity and rights” and states that it “expect[s] that people will respect the dignity of others and not harass or degrade others.”

III. Human rights standards:

On March 16, 2021, Facebook announced its corporate human rights policy , where it commemorated its commitment to respecting rights in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). The UNGPs, endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011, establish a voluntary framework for the human rights responsibilities of private businesses. As a global corporation committed to the UNGPs, Facebook must respect international human rights standards wherever it operates. The Oversight Board is called to evaluate Facebook’s decision in view of international human rights standards as applicable to Facebook.

The Board analyzed Facebook’s human rights responsibilities in this case by considering human rights standards including:

• The right to freedom of expression : International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( ICCPR ), Articles 19 and 20; as interpreted in General Comment No. 34, Human Rights Committee (2011) ( General Comment 34 ); the Rabat Plan of Action , OHCHR, (2012); UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression report A/HRC/38/35 (2018); Joint Statement of international freedom of expression monitors on COVID-19 (March, 2020) .
• The right to life : ICCPR Article 6.
• The right to security of person : ICCPR Article 9, para. 1.
• The right to non-discrimination : ICCPR Articles 2 and 26; International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ( ICERD ), Articles 1 and 4.
• Participation in public affairs and the right to vote: ICCPR Article 25.
• The right to remedy : ICCPR Article 2; General Comment No. 31, Human Rights Committee (2004) ( General Comment 31 ); UNGPs, Principle 22.

5. Content creator’s statement

When Facebook refers a case to the Board, the Board gives the person responsible for the content the opportunity to submit a statement. In this case, a statement to the Board was submitted on Mr. Trump’s behalf through the American Center for Law and Justice and a page administrator. This statement requests that the Board “reverse Facebook’s indefinite suspension of the Facebook account of former U.S. President Donald Trump.”

The statement discusses the posts removed from Facebook and Instagram on January 6, 2021, as well as Mr. Trump’s speech earlier that day. It states that the posts “called for those present at and around the Capitol that day to be peaceful and law abiding, and to respect the police” and that it is “inconceivable that either of those two posts can be viewed as a threat to public safety, or an incitement to violence.” It also states that “It is stunningly clear that in his speech there was no call to insurrection, no incitement to violence, and no threat to public safety in any manner,” and describes a “total absence of any serious linkage between the Trump speech and the Capitol building incursion.”

The statement also discusses Facebook’s reasons for imposing the restrictions. It states that as “nothing Mr. Trump said to the rally attendees could reasonably be interpreted as a threat to public safety,” Facebook’s basis for imposing restrictions cannot be safety-related. It also states that “any content suspected of impacting safety must have a direct and obvious link to actual risk of violence.” The statement further describes that the terms “fight” or “fighting” used during the rally speech “were linked to a call for lawful political and civic engagement,” and concludes “those words were neither intended, nor would be believed by any reasonable observer or listener to be a call for violent insurrection or lawlessness.”

The statement also addresses the "Capitol incursion.” It states that "all genuine Trump political supporters were law-abiding" and that the incursion was “certainly influenced, and most probably ignited by outside forces.” It describes a federal complaint against members of the Oath Keepers, and states the group was “in no way associated with Mr. Trump or his political organization.” It then states the Oath Keepers were “parasitically using the Trump rally and co-opting the issue of the Electoral College debate for their own purposes.”

The statement argues that Mr. Trump’s rally speech did not violate the Dangerous Organizations and Individuals Community Standard because “none of those categories fit this case” and “Mr. Trump’s political speech on January 6th never ‘proclaim[ed] a violent mission,’ a risk that lies at the very center of the Facebook policy.” It also states the Violence and Incitement Community Standard “fail[s] to support the suspension of the Trump Facebook account” because the two posts “merely called for peace and safety” and “none of the words in Mr. Trump’s speech, when considered in their true context, could reasonably be construed as incitement to violence or lawlessness.” It also cites Facebook’s referral to the Board mentioning the “peaceful transfer of power” and states this “new ad hoc rule on insuring [sic] peaceful governmental transitions is not just overly vague, it was non-existent until after the events that Facebook used to justify it.”

The statement also argues that the Board should "defer to American law in this appeal” and discusses the international law standards for restricting the right to freedom of expression, of legality, legitimate aim, and necessity and proportionality, with each element interpreted by reference to United States constitutional law. On legality, the statement cites protection of hyperbole and false statements of fact and Facebook’s importance to public discourse. It states that “employing content decisions based on what seems ‘reasonable,’ or how a ‘reasonable person’ would react to that content is not enough” and Facebook should "consider a much higher bar.” It states that the Supreme Court requires strict scrutiny for laws that burden political speech and that Facebook has market dominance. It also discusses constitutional standards for incitement to violence. On legitimate aim, it states that preserving public safety is a legitimate aim, but Mr. Trump’s speech did not present safety concerns. On necessity and proportionality, it denies the validity of the restrictions and states the penalty was disproportionate.

The statement concludes with suggestions for the Board’s policy recommendations on suspensions when the user is a political leader. It argues that the Board should “defer to the legal principles of the nation state in which the leader is, or was governing.” It then described multiple exceptions to this deference based on assessments of rule of law, guarantees of rights, processes for law making, processes of judicial review, and the existence of relevant legal principles in particular countries.

6. Facebook’s explanation of its decision

For each case, Facebook provides an explanation of its actions to the Board, and the Board asks Facebook questions to clarify further information it requires to make its decision. In this case, Facebook states that it removed the two pieces of content posted on January 6, 2021, for violating the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations Community Standard. Specifically, the content was removed for violating “its policy prohibiting praise, support, and representation of designated Violent Events.” Facebook also stated it contained “a violation of its Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy prohibiting praise of individuals who have engaged in acts of organized violence.” The company notes that its Community Standards clearly prohibit “content that expresses support or praise for groups, leaders or individuals involved in” activities such as terrorism, organized violence or criminal activity, and that this includes organized assault as well as planned acts of violence attempting to cause injury to a person with the intent to intimidate a government in order to achieve a political aim.

Facebook notes that its assessment reflected both the letter of its policy and the surrounding context in which the statement was made, including the ongoing violence at the Capitol. It says that while Mr. Trump did ask people in his video to “go home in peace,” he also reiterated allegations that the election was fraudulent and suggested a common purpose in saying, “I know how you feel.” Given the ongoing instability at the time of his comments and the overall tenor of his words, Facebook concludes that “We love you. You’re very special” was intended as praise of people who were breaking the law by storming the Capitol. It also believes the second post to contain praise of the event, as Mr. Trump referred to those who stormed the Capitol as “great patriots,” and urged people to “[r]emember this day forever.”

Facebook notes that it regularly limits the functionality of Facebook pages and profiles and Instagram accounts which repeatedly or severely violate its policies. Where it concludes that there is an “urgent and serious safety risk,” Facebook “goes beyond its standard enforcement protocols to take stronger actions against users and pages engaged in violating behavior.” In such cases, Facebook states that its enforcement actions remain grounded in its Community Standards and Instagram’s Community Guidelines. It states that it “evaluates all available enforcement tools, including permanent bans, before deciding which is the most appropriate to employ in the unique circumstance. In cases where Facebook must make an emergency decision that has widespread interest, it endeavors to share its decision and its reasoning with the public, often through a post in its Newsroom.”

Facebook states that it usually does not block the ability of pages to post or interact with content, but removes pages which severely or repeatedly violate Facebook’s policies. However, Facebook notes that its enforcement protocols for profiles, including feature blocks, may also be applied to Facebook pages when they are used in a person’s singular voice, as with the Donald J. Trump page. In this case, Facebook states that, in line with its standard enforcement protocols, it initially imposed a 24-hour block on the ability to post from the Facebook page and Instagram account. After further assessing the evolving situation and emerging details of the violence at the Capitol, Facebook concluded that the 24-hour ban was not sufficient to address “the risk that Trump would use his Facebook and Instagram presence to contribute to a risk of further violence.”

Facebook notes that it maintained the indefinite suspension after Mr. Biden’s inauguration partly due to analysis that violence connected to Mr. Trump had not passed. It cites National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin issued on January 27 by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that described a “heightened threat environment across the United States, which DHS believes will persist in the weeks following the successful Presidential Inauguration” and that “drivers to violence will remain through early 2021 and some [Domestic Violent Extremists] may be emboldened by the January 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. to target elected officials and government facilities.” Facebook notes that even when the risk of violence has diminished, it may be appropriate to permanently block Mr. Trump’s ability to post based on the seriousness of his violations on January 6, his continued insistence that Mr. Biden’s election was fraudulent, his sharing of other misinformation, and the fact that he is no longer president.

Facebook states that its decision was “informed by Article 19 of the ICCPR, and U.N. General Comment No. 34 on freedom of expression, which permits necessary and proportionate restrictions of freedom of expression in situations of public emergency that threatens the life of the nation. In this case, the District of Columbia was operating under a state of emergency that had been declared to protect the U.S. Capitol complex.” Facebook notes that it also took into account the six contextual factors from the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred. The Rabat Plan of Action was developed by experts with the support of the United Nations to guide states in addressing when advocacy of racial, religious or national hatred that incites discrimination, hostility or violence is so serious that resort to state-imposed criminal sanctions is appropriate, while protecting freedom of expression, in line with states’ obligations under Article 19 and Article 20, para. 2 of the ICCPR.

Facebook argues that the events of January 6 represented an unprecedented threat to the democratic processes and constitutional system of the United States. While Facebook asserts that it strives to act proportionately and accountably in curtailing public speech, given the unprecedented and volatile circumstances, Facebook believes it should retain operational flexibility to take further action including a permanent ban.

In this case, the Board asked Facebook 46 questions, and Facebook declined to answer seven entirely, and two partially. The questions that Facebook did not answer included questions about how Facebook’s news feed and other features impacted the visibility of Mr. Trump’s content; whether Facebook has researched, or plans to research, those design decisions in relation to the events of January 6, 2021; and information about violating content from followers of Mr. Trump’s accounts. The Board also asked questions related to the suspension of other political figures and removal of other content; whether Facebook had been contacted by political officeholders or their staff about the suspension of Mr. Trump’s accounts; and whether account suspension or deletion impacts the ability of advertisers to target the accounts of followers. Facebook stated that this information was not reasonably required for decision-making in accordance with the intent of the Charter; was not technically feasible to provide; was covered by attorney/client privilege; and/or could not or should not be provided because of legal, privacy, safety, or data protection concerns.

7. Third-party submissions

The Oversight Board received 9,666 public comments related to this case. Eighty of the comments were submitted from Asia Pacific and Oceania, seven from Central and South Asia, 136 from Europe, 23 from Latin America and the Caribbean, 13 from the Middle East and North Africa, 19 from Sub-Saharan Africa, and 9,388 from the United States and Canada.

The submissions cover the following themes, which include issues that the Board specifically asked about in its call for public comments:

• Facebook’s indefinite suspension of Mr. Trump’s accounts, its possible compliance with the company’s responsibilities to respect freedom of expression and human rights, and if alternative measures should have been taken.
• Facebook’s policies and practices on assessing off-Facebook context in enforcing its Community Standards, particularly if that content may incite violence.
• Issues involving the clarity of Facebook’s rules for disabling accounts.
• Facebook’s global content policies with respect to political candidates, office holders, and former office holders, including the relevance of Facebook’s “newsworthiness” allowance and the public’s right to information.
• Concerns regarding the consistency in the enforcement of Facebook’s Community Standards based on political bias.
• Concerns about the enforcement of Facebook’s Community Standards with respect to Mr. Trump’s previous posts, including those that may have contributed to harm towards certain groups of people and the spread of misinformation.
• Whether or not Mr. Trump’s expression, both prior to and on January 6, constituted incitement to violence.
• The outcome of the U.S. election and the Trump presidency.

To read public comments submitted for this case, please click here .

8. Oversight Board analysis

8.1 Compliance with content policies

The Board agrees with Facebook’s decision that the two posts by Mr. Trump on January 6 violated Facebook’s Community Standards and Instagram’s Community Guidelines. Facebook’s Community Standard on Dangerous Individuals and Organizations says that users should not post content “expressing support or praise for groups, leaders, or individuals involved in” violating events. Facebook designated the storming of the Capitol as a “violating event” and noted that it interprets violating events to include designated “violent” events.

At the time the posts were made, the violence at the Capitol was underway. Both posts praised or supported people who were engaged in violence. The words “We love you. You’re very special” in the first post and “great patriots” and “remember this day forever” in the second post amounted to praise or support of the individuals involved in the violence and the events at the Capitol that day.

The Board notes that other Community Standards may have been violated in this case, including the Standard on Violence and Incitement. Because Facebook’s decision was not based on this Standard and an additional finding of violation would not affect the outcome of this proceeding, a majority of the Board refrains from reaching any judgment on this alternative ground. The decision upholding Facebook’s imposition of restrictions on Mr. Trump’s accounts is based on the violation of the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations Community Standard.

A minority of the Board would consider the additional ground and find that the Violence and Incitement Standard was violated. The minority would hold that, read in context, the posts stating the election was being “stolen from us” and “so unceremoniously viciously stripped,” coupled with praise of the rioters, qualifies as “calls for actions,” “advocating for violence” and “misinformation and unverifiable rumors that contribute[d] to the risk of imminent violence or physical harm” prohibited by the Violence and Incitement Community Standard.

The Board finds that the two posts severely violated Facebook policies and concludes that Facebook was justified in restricting the account and page on January 6 and 7. The user praised and supported people involved in a continuing riot where people died, lawmakers were put at serious risk of harm, and a key democratic process was disrupted. Moreover, at the time when these restrictions were extended on January 7, the situation was fluid and serious safety concerns remained. Given the circumstances, restricting Mr. Trump’s access to Facebook and Instagram past January 6 and 7 struck an appropriate balance in light of the continuing risk of violence and disruption. As discussed more fully below, however, Facebook’s decision to make those restrictions “indefinite” finds no support in the Community Standards and violates principles of freedom of expression.

The Board notes that there is limited detailed public information on the cross check system and newsworthiness allowance. Although Facebook states the same rules apply to high-profile accounts and regular accounts, different processes may lead to different substantive outcomes. Facebook told the Board that it did not apply the newsworthiness allowance to the posts at issue in this case. Unfortunately, the lack of transparency regarding these decision-making processes appears to contribute to perceptions that the company may be unduly influenced by political or commercial considerations.

8.2 Compliance with Facebook’s values

The analysis above is consistent with Facebook's stated values of "Voice" and "Safety." For the reasons stated in this opinion, in this case the protection of public order justified limiting freedom of expression.

A minority believes it is particularly important to emphasize that “Dignity” was also relevant. Facebook relates “Dignity” to equality and that people should not “harass or degrade” others. The minority considers below that previous posts on the platform by Mr. Trump contributed to racial tension and exclusion and that this context was key to understanding the impact of Mr. Trump’s content. Having dealt with this case on other grounds, the majority does not comment on these posts.

8.3 Compliance with Facebook’s human rights responsibilities

The Board’s decisions do not concern the human rights obligations of states or application of national laws, but focus on Facebook’s content policies, its values and its human rights responsibilities as a business. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which Facebook has endorsed (See Section 4), establish what businesses should do on a voluntary basis to meet these responsibilities. This includes avoiding causing or contributing to human rights harms, in part through identifying possible and actual harms and working to prevent or address them (UNGP Principles 11, 13, 15, 18). These responsibilities extend to harms caused by third parties (UNGP Principle 19).

Facebook has become a virtually indispensable medium for political discourse, and especially so in election periods. It has a responsibility both to allow political expression and to avoid serious risks to other human rights. Facebook, like other digital platforms and media companies, has been heavily criticized for distributing misinformation and amplifying controversial and inflammatory material. Facebook’s human rights responsibilities must be understood in the light of those sometimes competing considerations.

The Board analyzes Facebook’s human rights responsibilities through international standards on freedom of expression and the rights to life, security, and political participation. Article 19 of the ICCPR sets out the right to freedom of expression. Article 19 states that “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.” The Board does not apply the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which does not govern the conduct of private companies. However, the Board notes that in many relevant respects the principles of freedom of expression reflected in the First Amendment are similar or analogous to the principles of freedom of expression in ICCPR Article 19.

Political speech receives high protection under human rights law because of its importance to democratic debate. The UN Human Rights Committee provided authoritative guidance on Article 19 ICCPR in General Comment No. 34, in which it states that “free communication of information and ideas about public and political issues between citizens, candidates and elected representatives is essential” (para. 20).

Facebook’s decision to suspend Mr. Trump’s Facebook page and Instagram account has freedom of expression implications not only for Mr. Trump but also for the rights of people to hear from political leaders, whether they support them or not. Although political figures do not have a greater right to freedom of expression than other people, restricting their speech can harm the rights of other people to be informed and participate in political affairs. However, international human rights standards expect state actors to condemn violence (Rabat Plan of Action), and to provide accurate information to the public on matters of public interest, while also correcting misinformation (2020 Joint Statement of international freedom of expression monitors on COVID-19).

International law allows for expression to be limited when certain conditions are met. Any restrictions must meet three requirements – rules must be clear and accessible, they must be designed for a legitimate aim, and they must be necessary and proportionate to the risk of harm. The Board uses this three-part test to analyze Facebook’s actions when it restricts content or accounts. First Amendment principles under U.S. law also insist that restrictions on freedom of speech imposed through state action may not be vague, must be for important governmental reasons and must be narrowly tailored to the risk of harm.

I. Legality (clarity and accessibility of the rules)

In international law on freedom of expression, the principle of legality requires that any rule used to limit expression is clear and accessible. People must be able to understand what is allowed and what is not allowed. Equally important, rules must be sufficiently clear to provide guidance to those who make decisions on limiting expression, so that these rules do not confer unfettered discretion, which can result in selective application of the rules. In this case, these rules are Facebook’s Community Standards and Instagram’s Community Guidelines. These policies aim to set out what people cannot post, and Facebook’s policies on when it can restrict access to Facebook and Instagram accounts.

The clarity of the Standard against praise and support of Dangerous Individuals and Organizations leaves much to be desired, as the Board noted in a prior decision (case 2020-005-FB-UA ). The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has also raised concerns about the vagueness of the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations Standard (A/HRC/38/35, para 26, footnote 67). As the Board has noted previously in case 2020-003-FB-UA , there may be times in which certain wording may raise legality concerns, but as applied to a particular case those concerns are not warranted. Any vagueness under the terms of the Standard does not render its application to the circumstances of this case doubtful. The January 6 riot at the Capitol fell squarely within the types of harmful events set out in Facebook’s policy, and Mr. Trump’s posts praised and supported those involved at the very time the violence was going on, and while Members of Congress were calling on him for help. In relation to these facts, Facebook’s policies gave adequate notice to the user and guidance to those enforcing the rule.

With regard to penalties for violations, the Community Standards and related information about account restrictions are published in various sources, including the Terms of Service, the introduction to the Community Standards, the Community Standard on Account Integrity and Authentic Identity, the Facebook Newsroom , and the Facebook Help Center. As noted in case 2020-006-FB-FBR the Board reiterates that the patchwork of applicable rules makes it difficult for users to understand why and when Facebook restricts accounts, and raises legality concerns.

While the Board is satisfied that the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations Standard is sufficiently clear under the circumstances of this case to satisfy clarity and vagueness norms of freedom of speech, Facebook’s imposition of an “indefinite” restriction is vague and uncertain. “Indefinite” restrictions are not described in the Community Standards and it is unclear what standards would trigger this penalty or what standards will be employed to maintain or remove it. Facebook provided no information of any prior imposition of indefinite suspensions in any other cases. The Board recognizes the necessity of some discretion on Facebook’s part to suspend accounts in urgent situations like that of January, but users cannot be left in a state of uncertainty for an indefinite time.

The Board rejects Facebook’s request for it to endorse indefinite restrictions, imposed and lifted without clear criteria. Appropriate limits on discretionary powers are crucial to distinguish the legitimate use of discretion from possible scenarios around the world in which Facebook may unduly silence speech not linked to harm or delay action critical to protecting people.

II. Legitimate aim

The requirement of legitimate aim means that any measure restricting expression must be for a purpose listed in Article 19, para. 3 of the ICCPR, and this list of aims is exhaustive. Legitimate aims include the protection of public order, as well as respect for the rights of others, including the rights to life, security, and to participate in elections and to have the outcome respected and implemented. An aim would not be legitimate where used as a pretext for suppressing expression, for example, to cite the aims of protecting security or the rights of others to censor speech simply because it is disagreeable or offensive (General Comment No. 34, paras. 11, 30, 46, 48). Facebook’s policy on praising and supporting individuals involved in “violating events,” violence or criminal activity was in accordance with the aims above.

III. Necessity and proportionality

The requirement of necessity and proportionality means that any restriction on expression must, among other things, be the least intrusive way to achieve a legitimate aim (General Comment No. 34, para. 34).

The Board believes that, where possible, Facebook should use less restrictive measures to address potentially harmful speech and protect the rights of others before resorting to content removal and account restriction. At a minimum, this would mean developing effective mechanisms to avoid amplifying speech that poses risks of imminent violence, discrimination, or other lawless action, where possible and proportionate, rather than banning the speech outright.

Facebook stated to the Board that it considered Mr. Trump’s “repeated use of Facebook and other platforms to undermine confidence in the integrity of the election (necessitating repeated application by Facebook of authoritative labels correcting the misinformation) represented an extraordinary abuse of the platform.” The Board sought clarification from Facebook about the extent to which the platform’s design decisions, including algorithms, policies, procedures and technical features, amplified Mr. Trump’s posts after the election and whether Facebook had conducted any internal analysis of whether such design decisions may have contributed to the events of January 6. Facebook declined to answer these questions. This makes it difficult for the Board to assess whether less severe measures, taken earlier, may have been sufficient to protect the rights of others.

The crucial question is whether Facebook’s decision to restrict access to Mr. Trump’s accounts on January 6 and 7 was necessary and proportionate to protect the rights of others. To understand the risk posed by the January 6 posts, the Board assessed Mr. Trump’s Facebook and Instagram posts and off-platform comments since the November election. In maintaining an unfounded narrative of electoral fraud and persistent calls to action, Mr. Trump created an environment where a serious risk of violence was possible. On January 6, Mr. Trump’s words of support to those involved in the riot legitimized their violent actions. Although the messages included a seemingly perfunctory call for people to act peacefully, this was insufficient to defuse the tensions and remove the risk of harm that his supporting statements contributed to. It was appropriate for Facebook to interpret Mr. Trump’s posts on January 6 in the context of escalating tensions in the United States and Mr. Trump’s statements in other media and at public events.

As part of its analysis, the Board drew upon the six factors from the Rabat Plan of Action to assess the capacity of speech to create a serious risk of inciting discrimination, violence, or other lawless action:

• Context : The posts were made during a time of high political tension centered on the unfounded claim that the November 2020 presidential election had been stolen. The Trump campaign had raised these claims in court, but with little or no evidence, and they were consistently rejected. Mr. Trump nonetheless continued to assert these claims on social media, including Facebook and Instagram, using his authoritative status as head of state to lend them credibility. He encouraged supporters to come to the nation’s capital on January 6 to “StoptheSteal,” suggesting that the events would be “wild.” On January 6, Mr. Trump urged supporters to march to the Capitol building to challenge the counting of the electoral votes. At the time of the posts, severe violence was continuing. When the restrictions were extended on January 7, the situation remained volatile. Among other indicators of the context, the District of Columbia took steps to warn of a heightened risk of violence surrounding the events at the Capitol.
• Status of the speaker : Mr. Trump’s identity as president of the United States and a political leader gave his Facebook and Instagram posts a high degree of influence. The Board notes that as president, Mr. Trump had credibility and authority with members of the public, which contributed to the events of January 6. Mr. Trump’s status as head of state with a high position of trust not only imbued his words with greater force and credibility but also created risks that his followers would understand they could act with impunity.
• Intent : The Board is not in a position to conclusively assess Mr. Trump’s intentions. The possibility of violence linked to Mr. Trump’s statements was clear, and the Board considered that he likely knew or should have known that these communications would pose a risk of legitimizing or encouraging violence.
• Content and form: The two posts on January 6 praised and supported rioters, even though they called on them to go home peacefully. The posts also reiterated the unfounded claim that the election was stolen. Reports suggest that this claim was understood by some of the rioters as legitimizing their actions. The evidence here shows that Mr. Trump used the communicative authority of the presidency in support of attackers on the Capitol and an attempt to prevent the lawful counting of electoral votes.
• Extent and reach: Mr. Trump had a large audience, with a following of at least 35 million accounts on Facebook and at least 24 million accounts on Instagram. Importantly, these social media posts are frequently picked up and shared more broadly through mass media channels as well as by high-profile supporters of Mr. Trump with large audiences, greatly increasing their reach.
• Imminence of harm : The posts were made during a dynamic and fluid period of ongoing violence. There was a clear immediate risk of harm to life, electoral integrity, and political participation. The violence at the Capitol started within an hour of the rally organized through the use of Facebook and other social media. Indeed, even as Mr. Trump was posting, the rioters were rampaging through the halls of Congress and Members of Congress were expressing fear by calling on the White House and pleading for the president to calm the situation. The riot directly interfered with Congress’s ability to discharge its constitutional responsibility of counting electoral votes, delaying this process by several hours.

Analyzing these factors, the Board concludes that the violation in this case was severe in terms of its human rights harms. Facebook’s imposition of account-level restrictions on January 6 and the extension of those restrictions on January 7 was necessary and proportionate.

For the minority of the Board, while a suspension of an extended duration or permanent disablement could be justified on the basis of the January 6 events alone, the proportionality analysis should also be informed by Mr. Trump’s use of Facebook’s platforms prior to the November 2020 presidential election. In particular, the minority noted the May 28, 2020, post “when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” made in the context of protests for racial justice, as well as multiple posts referencing the “China Virus.” Facebook has made commitments to respect the right to non-discrimination (Article 2, para. 1 ICCPR, Article 2 ICERD) and, in line with the requirements for restrictions on the right to freedom of expression (Article 19, para. 3 ICCPR), to prevent the use of its platforms for advocacy of racial or national hatred constituting incitement to hostility, discrimination or violence (Article 20 ICCPR, Article 4 ICERD). The frequency, quantity and extent of harmful communications should inform the Rabat incitement analysis (Rabat Plan of Action, para. 29), in particular the factors on context and intent. For the minority, this broader analysis would be crucial to inform Facebook’s assessment of a proportionate penalty on January 7, which should serve as both a deterrent to other political leaders and, where appropriate, an opportunity of rehabilitation. Further, if Facebook opted to impose a time-limited suspension, the risk-analysis required prior to reinstatement should also take into account these factors. Having dealt with this case on other grounds, the majority does not comment on these matters.

9. Oversight Board decision

On January 6, Facebook’s decision to impose restrictions on Mr. Trump’s accounts was justified. The posts in question violated the rules of Facebook and Instagram that prohibit support or praise of violating events, including the riot that was then underway at the U.S. Capitol. Given the seriousness of the violations and the ongoing risk of violence, Facebook was justified in imposing account-level restrictions and extending those restrictions on January 7.

However, it was not appropriate for Facebook to impose an indefinite suspension.

Facebook did not follow a clear published procedure in this case. Facebook’s normal account-level penalties for violations of its rules are to impose either a time-limited suspension or to permanently disable the user’s account. The Board finds that it is not permissible for Facebook to keep a user off the platform for an undefined period, with no criteria for when or whether the account will be restored.

It is Facebook’s role to create and communicate necessary and proportionate penalties that it applies in response to severe violations of its content policies. The Board’s role is to ensure that Facebook’s rules and processes are consistent with its content policies, its values, and its commitment to respect human rights. In applying an indeterminate and standardless penalty and then referring this case to the Board to resolve, Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities. The Board declines Facebook’s request and insists that Facebook apply and justify a defined penalty.

Facebook must, within six months of this decision, reexamine the arbitrary penalty it imposed on January 7 and decide the appropriate penalty. This penalty must be based on the gravity of the violation and the prospect of future harm. It must also be consistent with Facebook’s rules for severe violations which must in turn be clear, necessary, and proportionate.

If Facebook determines that Mr. Trump’s accounts should be restored, Facebook should apply its rules to that decision, including any modifications made pursuant to the policy recommendations below. Also, if Facebook determines to return him to the platform, it must address any further violations promptly and in accordance with its established content policies.

A minority believes that it is important to outline some minimum criteria that reflect the Board’s assessment of Facebook’s human rights responsibilities. The majority prefers instead to provide this guidance as a policy recommendation. The minority explicitly notes that Facebook’s responsibilities to respect human rights include facilitating the remediation of adverse human rights impacts it has contributed to (UNGPs, Principle 22). Remedy is a fundamental component of the UNGP ‘Protect, Respect, Remedy’ framework, reflecting international human rights law more broadly (Article 2, para. 3, ICCPR, as interpreted by the Human Rights Committee in General Comment No. 31, paras. 15 - 18). To fulfil its responsibility to guarantee that the adverse impacts are not repeated, Facebook must assess whether reinstating Mr. Trump’s accounts would pose a serious risk of inciting imminent discrimination, violence or other lawless action. This assessment of risk should be based on the considerations the Board detailed in the analysis of necessity and proportionality in Section 8.3.III above, including context and conditions on and off Facebook and Instagram. Facebook should, for example, be satisfied that Mr. Trump has ceased making unfounded claims about election fraud in the manner that justified suspension on January 6. Facebook’s enforcement procedures aim to be rehabilitative, and the minority believes that this aim accords well with the principle of satisfaction in human rights law. A minority of the Board emphasizes that Facebook’s rules should ensure that users who seek reinstatement after suspension recognize their wrongdoing and commit to observing the rules in the future. In this case, the minority suggests that, before Mr. Trump’s account can be restored, Facebook must also aim to ensure the withdrawal of praise or support for those involved in the riots.

10. Policy advisory statement

The Board acknowledges the difficult issues raised by this case and is grateful for the many thoughtful and engaged public comments that it received.

In its referral of this matter to the Oversight Board, Facebook specifically requested “observations or recommendations from the board about suspensions when the user is a political leader.” The Board asked Facebook to clarify their understanding of the term “political leader;” Facebook explained that they sought to cover “elected or appointed government officials and people who are actively running for office in an upcoming election, including a short period of time after the election if the candidate is not elected” but not all state actors. Based on the Board’s analysis of this case, it confines its guidance to issues of public safety.

The Board believes that it is not always useful to draw a firm distinction between political leaders and other influential users. It is important to recognize that other users with large audiences can also contribute to serious risks of harm. The same rules should apply to all users of the platform; but context matters when assessing issues of causality and the probability and imminence of harm. What is important is the degree of influence that a user has over other users.

When posts by influential users pose a high probability of imminent harm, as assessed under international human rights standards, Facebook should take action to enforce its rules quickly. Facebook must assess posts by influential users in context according to the way they are likely to be understood, even if their incendiary message is couched in language designed to avoid responsibility, such as superficial encouragement to act peacefully or lawfully. Facebook used the six contextual factors in the Rabat Plan of Action in this case, and the Board thinks this is a useful way to assess the contextual risks of potentially harmful speech. The Board stresses that time is of the essence in such situations; taking action before influential users can cause significant harm should take priority over newsworthiness and other values of political communication.

While all users should be held to the same content policies, there are unique factors that must be considered in assessing the speech of political leaders. Heads of state and other high officials of government can have a greater power to cause harm than other people. Facebook should recognize that posts by heads of state and other high officials of government can carry a heightened risk of encouraging, legitimizing, or inciting violence - either because their high position of trust imbues their words with greater force and credibility or because their followers may infer they can act with impunity. At the same time, it is important to protect the rights of people to hear political speech. Nonetheless, if the head of state or high government official has repeatedly posted messages that pose a risk of harm under international human rights norms, Facebook should suspend the account for a determinate period sufficient to protect against imminent harm. Periods of suspension should be long enough to deter misconduct and may, in appropriate cases, include account or page deletion.

Restrictions on speech are often imposed by or at the behest of powerful state actors against dissenting voices and members of political oppositions. Facebook must resist pressure from governments to silence their political opposition. When assessing potential risks, Facebook should be particularly careful to consider the relevant political context. In evaluating political speech from highly influential users, Facebook should rapidly escalate the content moderation process to specialized staff who are familiar with the linguistic and political context and insulated from political and economic interference and undue influence. This analysis should examine the conduct of highly influential users off the Facebook and Instagram platforms to adequately assess the full relevant context of potentially harmful speech. Further, Facebook should ensure that it dedicates adequate resourcing and expertise to assess risks of harm from influential accounts globally.

Facebook should publicly explain the rules that it uses when it imposes account-level sanctions against influential users. These rules should ensure that when Facebook imposes a time-limited suspension on the account of an influential user to reduce the risk of significant harm, it will assess whether the risk has receded before the suspension term expires. If Facebook identifies that the user poses a serious risk of inciting imminent violence, discrimination, or other lawless action at that time, another time-bound suspension should be imposed when such measures are necessary to protect public safety and proportionate to the risk.

When Facebook implements special procedures that apply to influential users, these should be well documented. It was unclear whether Facebook applied different standards in this case, and the Board heard many concerns about the potential application of the newsworthiness allowance. It is important that Facebook address this lack of transparency and the confusion it has caused. Facebook should produce more information to help users understand and evaluate the process and criteria for applying the newsworthiness allowance. Facebook should clearly explain how the newsworthiness allowance applies to influential accounts, including political leaders and other public figures. In regard to cross check review, Facebook should clearly explain the rationale, standards, and processes of review, including the criteria to determine which pages and accounts are selected for inclusion. Facebook should report on the relative error rates and thematic consistency of determinations made through the cross check process compared with ordinary enforcement procedures.

When Facebook’s platform has been abused by influential users in a way that results in serious adverse human rights impacts, it should conduct a thorough investigation into the incident. Facebook should assess what influence it had and assess what changes it could enact to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for adverse impacts in future. In relation to this case, Facebook should undertake a comprehensive review of its potential contribution to the narrative of electoral fraud and the exacerbated tensions that culminated in the violence in the United States on January 6, 2021. This should be an open reflection on the design and policy choices that Facebook has made that may enable its platform to be abused. Facebook should carry out this due diligence, implement a plan to act upon its findings, and communicate openly about how it addresses adverse human rights impacts it was involved with.

In cases where Facebook or Instagram users may have engaged in atrocity crimes or grave human rights violations, as well as incitement under Article 20 of the ICCPR, the removal of content and disabling of accounts, while potentially reducing the risk of harm, may also undermine accountability efforts, including by removing evidence. Facebook has a responsibility to collect, preserve and, where appropriate, share information to assist in the investigation and potential prosecution of grave violations of international criminal, human rights and humanitarian law by competent authorities and accountability mechanisms. Facebook’s corporate human rights policy should make clear the protocols the company has in place in this regard. The policy should also make clear how information previously public on the platform can be made available to researchers conducting investigations that conform with international standards and applicable data protection laws.

This case highlights further deficiencies in Facebook’s policies that it should address. In particular, the Board finds that Facebook’s penalty system is not sufficiently clear to users and does not provide adequate guidance to regulate Facebook’s exercise of discretion. Facebook should explain in its Community Standards and Guidelines its strikes and penalties process for restricting profiles, pages, groups and accounts on Facebook and Instagram in a clear, comprehensive, and accessible manner. These policies should provide users with sufficient information to understand when strikes are imposed (including any applicable exceptions or allowances) and how penalties are calculated. Facebook should also provide users with accessible information on how many violations, strikes, and penalties have been assessed against them, as well as the consequences that will follow future violations. In its transparency reporting, Facebook should include numbers of profile, page, and account restrictions, including the reason and manner in which enforcement action was taken, with information broken down by region and country.

Finally, the Board urges Facebook to develop and publish a policy that governs its response to crises or novel situations where its regular processes would not prevent or avoid imminent harm. While these situations cannot always be anticipated, Facebook’s guidance should set appropriate parameters for such actions, including a requirement to review its decision within a fixed time.

*Procedural note:

The Oversight Board’s decisions are prepared by panels of five Members and approved by a majority of the Board. Board decisions do not necessarily represent the personal views of all Members.

Return to Case Decisions and Policy Advisory Opinions

• العربية ( Arabic )
• Français ( French )
• हिन्दी ( Hindi )
• Português ( Portuguese )
• Español ( Spanish )