Pelosi's Paper-Tearing: Law-Breaking Or Symbolic Protest?

In February 2020, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up a copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union address. This action sparked outrage among conservatives, with some, including Trump himself, falsely accusing Pelosi of breaking the law. Legal experts have since confirmed that Pelosi did not violate any laws, as the document she destroyed was not an official government record.

Pelosi's copy of the speech was not an official document

The copy of the speech that was torn up by Nancy Pelosi was not an official document. It was a copy of the speech that President Donald Trump handed to her and Vice President Mike Pence before he began his address. This was simply a performative act, and the document was not filed or deposited in a public office of the United States.

The document that Pelosi destroyed is not considered an official government document. It was a copy of Trump’s speech, not the original, and it was not filed or deposited with an official. It was given to her as a memento. This action was not an official deposit.

Legal experts have confirmed that Pelosi did not violate the U.S. Code. Victoria Nourse, a professor at Georgetown Law, explains that the State of the Union isn't "filed or deposited" officially with the Speaker or Vice President. It is the President's copy that is the official Presidential Record that goes to the National Archive. Pelosi ripped her own copy, not the President's.

The purpose of the records law "is to prevent someone from depriving the government of the use of its documents," said Kathleen Clark, a professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis. Pelosi's move "doesn't fit within the statute," she added.

Under House rules, members of Congress are encouraged to preserve records or donate them to a research institution for historical study. However, unlike congressional committees, members are not legally required to hold onto their office's files. They can keep them private, destroy them, or rip them up.

The document was not filed or deposited with an official

The document that Pelosi destroyed was a copy of Trump’s speech, not the original, and it was not filed or deposited in a public office of the United States. The President gave Pelosi a copy of his address as a memento of sorts. This action wasn't an official deposit; it was an act of theatre.

Trump handed Pelosi a copy of the speech. He didn't file this copy with any official, whose job it is to make sure such documents are collected, recorded, and physically and legally protected. The copy of the speech that Pelosi tore up was her own personal property. It was not a government record or government property.

The State of the Union text was never "filed or deposited" with Pelosi, nor did she have “custody” of it in the legal sense. Video of the event shows that Trump handed copies to both Pelosi and Vice President Mike Pence before he began speaking, and Pelosi can be seen following along throughout.

The purpose of the records law "is to prevent someone from depriving the government of the use of its documents," so Pelosi's move "doesn't fit within the statute". There are probably countless copies of Trump's address, such as the version the White House posted online. Pelosi's action doesn't preclude future generations from accessing one.

Pelosi's copy was her own personal property

The copy of the State of the Union address that Nancy Pelosi tore up was her own personal property. It was not an official government document. The copy was handed to her by President Trump, who also gave a copy to Vice President Mike Pence. Pelosi's copy was not filed or deposited in a public office of the United States. It was not a government record or government property. Under House rules, members of Congress are encouraged to preserve records or donate them to a research institution for historical study, but they are not legally required to do so. They can keep them private, destroy them, or rip them up.

The copy of the speech that Pelosi tore up was not the only copy in existence. There are probably countless copies of Trump's address, including the version the White House posted online. Pelosi's action does not preclude future generations from accessing the speech.

Legal experts have confirmed that Pelosi did not violate 18 U.S. Code § 2071, which deals with the "`concealment, removal, or mutilation`" of records and reports. This code states that any person who "conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys" any government record "filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States" may be fined, imprisoned for up to three years, or both. Pelosi's copy of the speech was not filed or deposited with any official, and therefore does not fall under the requirements for documents that cannot be destroyed according to the code's definition.

The document was not covered by the statute

The document that Pelosi destroyed is not considered an official government document. It was a copy of Trump's speech, not the original, and it was not filed or deposited in a public office of the United States. The President gave Pelosi a copy of his address as a memento of sorts. This action wasn't an official deposit. It was an act of theatre.

Trump handed Pelosi a copy of the speech. He didn't file this copy with any official, whose job it is to make sure such documents are collected, recorded, and physically and legally protected. The copy was Pelosi's own property, and she was free to do with it as she pleased.

The statute in question deals with the "concealment, removal, or mutilation" of records and reports. It sets a penalty for anyone who "conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys" any government record "filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States."

Pelosi's copy of the State of the Union address is not a government record or government property. It is personal property. Under House rules, members of Congress are encouraged to preserve records or donate them to a research institution for historical study, but they are not legally required to do so. They can keep them private, destroy them, or rip them up.

The purpose of the records law "is to prevent someone from depriving the government of the use of its documents," so Pelosi's move "doesn't fit within the statute." There are probably countless copies of Trump's address, and Pelosi's action doesn't preclude future generations from accessing one.

Pelosi's action was protected by the First Amendment

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up a copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union address in February 2020. This action was in response to Trump's rejection of her "handshake of friendship".

Right-wing critics, including Trump himself, were quick to accuse Pelosi of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2071, which prohibits the destruction of government records. However, this accusation is based on a misinterpretation of the law. The statute in question criminalizes the destruction of records "filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States". Pelosi's copy of the speech was not an official file or deposit; it was simply a copy given to her by Trump. As such, her actions did not violate the statute.

Legal experts, including Yale Law professor William Eskridge and Georgetown Law professor Victoria Nourse, confirmed that Pelosi's actions did not violate the law. Eskridge stated that "the statute does not criminalize Pelosi's expressive action of tearing up her copy of the speech. I don't read the statute as targeting destruction of a xerox copy of a document, and even if there were ambiguity, any neutral judge would read the statute narrowly, to avoid the clash with the First Amendment's protection of expression."

Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe further asserted that Pelosi's actions were "well within the protection of both the speech and debate clause and the First Amendment." Pelosi's action was purely symbolic and did not break any laws.

Pelosi's gesture was likely intended to be performative and symbolic, rather than an official act. While it may have sparked outrage from some, it did not violate the law or infringe on the First Amendment's protection of freedom of expression.

Frequently asked questions