Did Nancy Break The Law? Understanding Her Actions

In February 2020, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up a copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union address. This action sparked a debate on social media about whether Pelosi had broken the law. Some, including conservative pundit Charlie Kirk, claimed that Pelosi had violated 18 U.S.C. § 2071, a federal statute prohibiting the destruction of government records. However, legal experts unanimously disagreed, stating that the copy of the speech was not a government record and that Pelosi's actions were protected by the First Amendment.

Did Nancy Pelosi commit a federal crime?

In February 2020, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up a copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union address. This action sparked a debate about whether she had committed a federal crime.

Some people, including conservative pundits and former congressional candidate Carl Higbie, claimed that Pelosi had violated 18 U.S.C. § 2071, which pertains to the protection of government property and the protection of public records and documents. They argued that Pelosi's actions constituted the mutilation of official U.S. records and/or documents.

However, legal experts unanimously disagreed with this interpretation. They pointed out that the copy of the speech Pelosi shredded was not a government record or property. Trump had handed copies of the speech to Pelosi and Vice President Mike Pence before he began speaking, and these copies were not considered official deposits or filings. Under the law, members of Congress are not legally required to retain their copies of the speech.

Additionally, according to the Presidential and Federal Records Act amendments of 2014, duplicate copies of records preserved only for convenience are not considered Federal records. This includes copies of information 'kept only for reference'.

In conclusion, while Pelosi's actions may have been controversial and sparked ethical debates, they did not constitute a federal crime.

What does the law say about destroying government records?

The destruction of government records is prohibited by US law. The US Code prohibits the destruction of government records, and the penalty for doing so is a fine of up to $2000 or imprisonment of up to three years, or both. The law states that anyone who:

> "willfully and unlawfully; conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates or destroys; or attempts to conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate or destroy; or carries away with intent to conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate or destroy; any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document or other thing deposited in any public office may be punished by imprisonment for three years, a $2,000 fine, or both.

The Presidential Records Act of 1978 further clarifies that presidential records are considered government property and must be stored with the National Archives for safekeeping. This Act was amended in 2014 to specify that duplicate copies of records preserved only for convenience are not considered Federal records.

Despite these laws, there have been numerous instances of the unauthorized destruction of government records, including the deletion of emails, the loss of physical records, and the disposal of electronic data. In some cases, these actions have been accidental, while in others, they have been intentional and unlawful.

What was the ethical debate surrounding Pelosi's actions?

The ethical debate surrounding Nancy Pelosi's actions centres on the question of whether her conduct was appropriate and dignified for a House Speaker. While her actions did not violate any laws, as they did not constitute the destruction of a government record or property, they were seen by some as a breach of ethical standards.

Pelosi's decision to rip up President Trump's State of the Union address sparked a flurry of comments and criticism on social media, with some arguing that her conduct was beneath the dignity of the House. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) filed an ethics complaint against Pelosi, stating that her actions were "a potential violation of law (18 USC 2071)". Gaetz's complaint referenced the federal law pertaining to the protection of government property and public records, which prohibits the concealment, removal, mutilation, obliteration or destruction of records.

However, legal experts clarified that Pelosi's copy of the speech was not a government record or property and that she was well within her rights to do with it as she pleased. They emphasised that the law in question is intended to prevent the destruction of records in official repositories, such as the National Archives, and that Pelosi's actions did not impede future generations' access to the address.

The debate surrounding Pelosi's actions highlights the tension between legal and ethical standards. While her conduct did not violate any laws, some argued that it fell short of the ethical standards expected of a House Speaker, particularly in terms of maintaining the dignity of the House. This incident serves as a reminder that legal compliance does not always equate to ethical behaviour, and that the interpretation of ethical standards can vary across political divides.

What was the public reaction to Pelosi's actions?

The public reaction to Nancy Pelosi's actions was mixed. While Pelosi's actions were up for ethical debate, many legal experts agreed that she did not break the law. However, some people on social media were quick to spread the rumour that she had committed a felony.

Right-wing critics, including Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, former GOP congressional candidate Carl Higbie, and Donald Trump Jr., were outraged by Pelosi's actions. Kirk and Higbie claimed that Pelosi had violated 18 U.S.C. § 2071, which prohibits the destruction of government records, and suggested that she could face legal consequences. Rep. Matt Gaetz even filed an ethics complaint against Pelosi, arguing that her conduct was "beneath the dignity of the House" and a "potential violation of law (18 USC 2071)".

On the other hand, legal experts unanimously disagreed with the claim that Pelosi had broken the law. They argued that the copy of the speech Pelosi tore up was not a government record or official document but rather personal property. They emphasised that the law in question pertains to the destruction of records in official repositories, and Trump's speech did not fall into that category.

One expert, Douglas Cox, a professor of law at the City of New York University School of Law, explained that members of Congress are encouraged to preserve records but are not legally required to do so. He stated, "They can keep them private, they can destroy them, or they can rip them up."

Another expert, Kathleen Clark, a professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, pointed out that the purpose of the records law is to prevent the government from being deprived of its documents, and Pelosi's action did not fit within that statute.

Overall, while Pelosi's actions sparked outrage and debate, legal experts agreed that she did not break the law by tearing up a copy of President Trump's State of the Union address.

Did Pelosi's actions have any consequences?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's actions did not have any legal consequences, as her copy of President Trump's State of the Union address was not a government record or government property. However, her actions did spark intense debate and drew the ire of Republicans, with some calling for her to be held accountable for her actions.

The debate surrounding Pelosi's actions centres around whether she violated 18 U.S.C. § 2071, a federal law pertaining to the protection of government property and the preservation of public records and documents. This law prohibits the concealment, removal, mutilation, obliteration or destruction of government records and imposes a penalty of a fine or imprisonment of up to three years for those who violate it.

However, legal experts unanimously agree that Pelosi did not violate this law. The copy of the speech that she shredded was given to her by Trump and was not "filed or deposited" with her in an official capacity. It was also not the only copy of the speech, as similar copies were provided to the Vice President, members of Congress, and the media. Therefore, her actions did not deprive the government of its records or prevent future generations from accessing them.

While Pelosi's actions did not result in legal consequences, they did fuel intense political and ethical debates, with some arguing that her conduct was inappropriate and beneath the dignity of the House.

Frequently asked questions