reported speech here there

Time and Place in Reported Speech

When we report something, we may need to make changes to:

• time (now, tomorrow)
• place (here, this room)

If we report something around the same time, then we probably do not need to make any changes to time words . But if we report something at a different time, we need to change time words. Look at these example sentences:

• He said: "It was hot yesterday ." → He said that it had been hot the day before .
• He said: "We are going to swim tomorrow ." → He said they were going to swim the next day .

Here is a list of common time words, showing how you change them for reported speech:

Place words

If we are in the same place when we report something, then we do not need to make any changes to place words . But if we are in a different place when we report something, then we need to change the place words. Look at these example sentences:

• He said: "It is cold in here ." → He said that it was cold in there .
• He said: "How much is this book ?" → He asked how much the book was.

Here are some common place words, showing how you change them for reported speech:

Contributor: Josef Essberger

Reported Speech

Perfect english grammar.

Reported Statements

Here's how it works:

We use a 'reporting verb' like 'say' or 'tell'. ( Click here for more about using 'say' and 'tell' .) If this verb is in the present tense, it's easy. We just put 'she says' and then the sentence:

• Direct speech: I like ice cream.
• Reported speech: She says (that) she likes ice cream.

We don't need to change the tense, though probably we do need to change the 'person' from 'I' to 'she', for example. We also may need to change words like 'my' and 'your'. (As I'm sure you know, often, we can choose if we want to use 'that' or not in English. I've put it in brackets () to show that it's optional. It's exactly the same if you use 'that' or if you don't use 'that'.)

But , if the reporting verb is in the past tense, then usually we change the tenses in the reported speech:

• Reported speech: She said (that) she liked ice cream.

* doesn't change.

• Direct speech: The sky is blue.
• Reported speech: She said (that) the sky is/was blue.

Click here for a mixed tense exercise about practise reported statements. Click here for a list of all the reported speech exercises.

Reported Questions

So now you have no problem with making reported speech from positive and negative sentences. But how about questions?

• Direct speech: Where do you live?
• Reported speech: She asked me where I lived.
• Direct speech: Where is Julie?
• Reported speech: She asked me where Julie was.
• Direct speech: Do you like chocolate?
• Reported speech: She asked me if I liked chocolate.

Click here to practise reported 'wh' questions. Click here to practise reported 'yes / no' questions. Reported Requests

There's more! What if someone asks you to do something (in a polite way)? For example:

• Direct speech: Close the window, please
• Or: Could you close the window please?
• Or: Would you mind closing the window please?
• Reported speech: She asked me to close the window.
• Direct speech: Please don't be late.
• Reported speech: She asked us not to be late.

Reported Orders

• Direct speech: Sit down!
• Reported speech: She told me to sit down.
• Click here for an exercise to practise reported requests and orders.
• Click here for an exercise about using 'say' and 'tell'.
• Click here for a list of all the reported speech exercises.

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

Read more about our learning method

What is Reported Speech and how to use it? with Examples

Reported speech and indirect speech are two terms that refer to the same concept, which is the act of expressing what someone else has said. Reported speech is different from direct speech because it does not use the speaker's exact words. Instead, the reporting verb is used to introduce the reported speech, and the tense and pronouns are changed to reflect the shift in perspective. There are two main types of reported speech: statements and questions. 1. Reported Statements: In reported statements, the reporting verb is usually "said." The tense in the reported speech changes from the present simple to the past simple, and any pronouns referring to the speaker or listener are changed to reflect the shift in perspective. For example, "I am going to the store," becomes "He said that he was going to the store." 2. Reported Questions: In reported questions, the reporting verb is usually "asked." The tense in the reported speech changes from the present simple to the past simple, and the word order changes from a question to a statement. For example, "What time is it?" becomes "She asked what time it was." It's important to note that the tense shift in reported speech depends on the context and the time of the reported speech. Here are a few more examples: ●  Direct speech: "I will call you later." Reported speech: He said that he would call me later. ●  Direct speech: "Did you finish your homework?" Reported speech: She asked if I had finished my homework. ●  Direct speech: "I love pizza." Reported speech: They said that they loved pizza.

When do we use reported speech?

Reported speech is used to report what someone else has said, thought, or written. It is often used in situations where you want to relate what someone else has said without quoting them directly. Reported speech can be used in a variety of contexts, such as in news reports, academic writing, and everyday conversation. Some common situations where reported speech is used include: News reports: Journalists often use reported speech to quote what someone said in an interview or press conference. Business and professional communication: In professional settings, reported speech can be used to summarize what was discussed in a meeting or to report feedback from a customer. Conversational English: In everyday conversations, reported speech is used to relate what someone else said. For example, "She told me that she was running late." Narration: In written narratives or storytelling, reported speech can be used to convey what a character said or thought.

How to make reported speech?

1. Change the pronouns and adverbs of time and place: In reported speech, you need to change the pronouns, adverbs of time and place to reflect the new speaker or point of view. Here's an example: Direct speech: "I'm going to the store now," she said. Reported speech: She said she was going to the store then. In this example, the pronoun "I" is changed to "she" and the adverb "now" is changed to "then." 2. Change the tense: In reported speech, you usually need to change the tense of the verb to reflect the change from direct to indirect speech. Here's an example: Direct speech: "I will meet you at the park tomorrow," he said. Reported speech: He said he would meet me at the park the next day. In this example, the present tense "will" is changed to the past tense "would." 3. Change reporting verbs: In reported speech, you can use different reporting verbs such as "say," "tell," "ask," or "inquire" depending on the context of the speech. Here's an example: Direct speech: "Did you finish your homework?" she asked. Reported speech: She asked if I had finished my homework. In this example, the reporting verb "asked" is changed to "said" and "did" is changed to "had." Overall, when making reported speech, it's important to pay attention to the verb tense and the changes in pronouns, adverbs, and reporting verbs to convey the original speaker's message accurately.

How do I change the pronouns and adverbs in reported speech?

1. Changing Pronouns: In reported speech, the pronouns in the original statement must be changed to reflect the perspective of the new speaker. Generally, the first person pronouns (I, me, my, mine, we, us, our, ours) are changed according to the subject of the reporting verb, while the second and third person pronouns (you, your, yours, he, him, his, she, her, hers, it, its, they, them, their, theirs) are changed according to the object of the reporting verb. For example: Direct speech: "I love chocolate." Reported speech: She said she loved chocolate. Direct speech: "You should study harder." Reported speech: He advised me to study harder. Direct speech: "She is reading a book." Reported speech: They noticed that she was reading a book. 2. Changing Adverbs: In reported speech, the adverbs and adverbial phrases that indicate time or place may need to be changed to reflect the perspective of the new speaker. For example: Direct speech: "I'm going to the cinema tonight." Reported speech: She said she was going to the cinema that night. Direct speech: "He is here." Reported speech: She said he was there. Note that the adverb "now" usually changes to "then" or is omitted altogether in reported speech, depending on the context. It's important to keep in mind that the changes made to pronouns and adverbs in reported speech depend on the context and the perspective of the new speaker. With practice, you can become more comfortable with making these changes in reported speech.

How do I change the tense in reported speech?

In reported speech, the tense of the reported verb usually changes to reflect the change from direct to indirect speech. Here are some guidelines on how to change the tense in reported speech: Present simple in direct speech changes to past simple in reported speech. For example: Direct speech: "I like pizza." Reported speech: She said she liked pizza. Present continuous in direct speech changes to past continuous in reported speech. For example: Direct speech: "I am studying for my exam." Reported speech: He said he was studying for his exam. Present perfect in direct speech changes to past perfect in reported speech. For example: Direct speech: "I have finished my work." Reported speech: She said she had finished her work. Past simple in direct speech changes to past perfect in reported speech. For example: Direct speech: "I visited my grandparents last weekend." Reported speech: She said she had visited her grandparents the previous weekend. Will in direct speech changes to would in reported speech. For example: Direct speech: "I will help you with your project." Reported speech: He said he would help me with my project. Can in direct speech changes to could in reported speech. For example: Direct speech: "I can speak French." Reported speech: She said she could speak French. Remember that the tense changes in reported speech depend on the tense of the verb in the direct speech, and the tense you use in reported speech should match the time frame of the new speaker's perspective. With practice, you can become more comfortable with changing the tense in reported speech.

Do I always need to use a reporting verb in reported speech?

No, you do not always need to use a reporting verb in reported speech. However, using a reporting verb can help to clarify who is speaking and add more context to the reported speech. In some cases, the reported speech can be introduced by phrases such as "I heard that" or "It seems that" without using a reporting verb. For example: Direct speech: "I'm going to the cinema tonight." Reported speech with a reporting verb: She said she was going to the cinema tonight. Reported speech without a reporting verb: It seems that she's going to the cinema tonight. However, it's important to note that using a reporting verb can help to make the reported speech more formal and accurate. When using reported speech in academic writing or journalism, it's generally recommended to use a reporting verb to make the reporting more clear and credible. Some common reporting verbs include say, tell, explain, ask, suggest, and advise. For example: Direct speech: "I think we should invest in renewable energy." Reported speech with a reporting verb: She suggested that they invest in renewable energy. Overall, while using a reporting verb is not always required, it can be helpful to make the reported speech more clear and accurate.

How to use reported speech to report questions and commands?

1. Reporting Questions: When reporting questions, you need to use an introductory phrase such as "asked" or "wondered" followed by the question word (if applicable), subject, and verb. You also need to change the word order to make it a statement. Here's an example: Direct speech: "What time is the meeting?" Reported speech: She asked what time the meeting was. Note that the question mark is not used in reported speech. 2. Reporting Commands: When reporting commands, you need to use an introductory phrase such as "ordered" or "told" followed by the person, to + infinitive, and any additional information. Here's an example: Direct speech: "Clean your room!" Reported speech: She ordered me to clean my room. Note that the exclamation mark is not used in reported speech. In both cases, the tense of the reported verb should be changed accordingly. For example, present simple changes to past simple, and future changes to conditional. Here are some examples: Direct speech: "Will you go to the party with me?" Reported speech: She asked if I would go to the party with her. Direct speech: "Please bring me a glass of water." Reported speech: She requested that I bring her a glass of water. Remember that when using reported speech to report questions and commands, the introductory phrases and verb tenses are important to convey the intended meaning accurately.

How to make questions in reported speech?

To make questions in reported speech, you need to use an introductory phrase such as "asked" or "wondered" followed by the question word (if applicable), subject, and verb. You also need to change the word order to make it a statement. Here are the steps to make questions in reported speech: Identify the reporting verb: The first step is to identify the reporting verb in the sentence. Common reporting verbs used to report questions include "asked," "inquired," "wondered," and "wanted to know." Change the tense and pronouns: Next, you need to change the tense and pronouns in the sentence to reflect the shift from direct to reported speech. The tense of the verb is usually shifted back one tense (e.g. from present simple to past simple) in reported speech. The pronouns should also be changed as necessary to reflect the shift in perspective from the original speaker to the reporting speaker. Use an appropriate question word: If the original question contained a question word (e.g. who, what, where, when, why, how), you should use the same question word in the reported question. If the original question did not contain a question word, you can use "if" or "whether" to introduce the reported question. Change the word order: In reported speech, the word order of the question changes from the inverted form to a normal statement form. The subject usually comes before the verb, unless the original question started with a question word. Here are some examples of reported questions: Direct speech: "What time is the meeting?" Reported speech: She asked what time the meeting was. Direct speech: "Did you finish your homework?" Reported speech: He wanted to know if I had finished my homework. Direct speech: "Where are you going?" Reported speech: She wondered where I was going. Remember that when making questions in reported speech, the introductory phrases and verb tenses are important to convey the intended meaning accurately. Here you can find more examples of direct and indirect questions

What is the difference between reported speech an indirect speech?

In reported or indirect speech, you are retelling or reporting what someone said using your own words. The tense of the reported speech is usually shifted back one tense from the tense used in the original statement. For example, if someone said, "I am going to the store," in reported speech you would say, "He/she said that he/she was going to the store." The main difference between reported speech and indirect speech is that reported speech usually refers to spoken language, while indirect speech can refer to both spoken and written language. Additionally, indirect speech is a broader term that includes reported speech as well as other ways of expressing what someone else has said, such as paraphrasing or summarizing.

Examples of direct speech to reported

1. Direct speech: "I am hungry," she said. Reported speech: She said she was hungry. 2. Direct speech: "Can you pass the salt, please?" he asked. Reported speech: He asked her to pass the salt. 3. Direct speech: "I will meet you at the cinema," he said. Reported speech: He said he would meet her at the cinema. 4. Direct speech: "I have been working on this project for hours," she said. Reported speech: She said she had been working on the project for hours. 5. Direct speech: "What time does the train leave?" he asked. Reported speech: He asked what time the train left. 6. Direct speech: "I love playing the piano," she said. Reported speech: She said she loved playing the piano. 7. Direct speech: "I am going to the grocery store," he said. Reported speech: He said he was going to the grocery store. 8. Direct speech: "Did you finish your homework?" the teacher asked. Reported speech: The teacher asked if he had finished his homework. 9. Direct speech: "I want to go to the beach," she said. Reported speech: She said she wanted to go to the beach. 10. Direct speech: "Do you need help with that?" he asked. Reported speech: He asked if she needed help with that. 11. Direct speech: "I can't come to the party," he said. Reported speech: He said he couldn't come to the party. 12. Direct speech: "Please don't leave me," she said. Reported speech: She begged him not to leave her. 13. Direct speech: "I have never been to London before," he said. Reported speech: He said he had never been to London before. 14. Direct speech: "Where did you put my phone?" she asked. Reported speech: She asked where she had put her phone. 15. Direct speech: "I'm sorry for being late," he said. Reported speech: He apologized for being late. 16. Direct speech: "I need some help with this math problem," she said. Reported speech: She said she needed some help with the math problem. 17. Direct speech: "I am going to study abroad next year," he said. Reported speech: He said he was going to study abroad the following year. 18. Direct speech: "Can you give me a ride to the airport?" she asked. Reported speech: She asked him to give her a ride to the airport. 19. Direct speech: "I don't know how to fix this," he said. Reported speech: He said he didn't know how to fix it. 20. Direct speech: "I hate it when it rains," she said. Reported speech: She said she hated it when it rained.

What is Direct and Indirect Speech?

Direct and indirect speech are two different ways of reporting spoken or written language. Let's delve into the details and provide some examples. Click here to read more

Fluent English Grammar

Created by Fluent English Grammar

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

Reported Speech: Rules, Examples, Exceptions

👉 Quiz 1 / Quiz 2

Advanced Grammar Course

What is reported speech?

“Reported speech” is when we talk about what somebody else said – for example:

• Direct Speech: “I’ve been to London three times.”
• Reported Speech: She said she’d been to London three times.

There are a lot of tricky little details to remember, but don’t worry, I’ll explain them and we’ll see lots of examples. The lesson will have three parts – we’ll start by looking at statements in reported speech, and then we’ll learn about some exceptions to the rules, and finally we’ll cover reported questions, requests, and commands.

So much of English grammar – like this topic, reported speech – can be confusing, hard to understand, and even harder to use correctly. I can help you learn grammar easily and use it confidently inside my Advanced English Grammar Course.

In this course, I will make even the most difficult parts of English grammar clear to you – and there are lots of opportunities for you to practice!

Backshift of Verb Tenses in Reported Speech

When we use reported speech, we often change the verb tense backwards in time. This can be called “backshift.”

Here are some examples in different verb tenses:

Reported Speech (Part 1) Quiz

Exceptions to backshift in reported speech.

Now that you know some of the reported speech rules about backshift, let’s learn some exceptions.

There are two situations in which we do NOT need to change the verb tense.

No backshift needed when the situation is still true

For example, if someone says “I have three children” (direct speech) then we would say “He said he has three children” because the situation continues to be true.

If I tell you “I live in the United States” (direct speech) then you could tell someone else “She said she lives in the United States” (that’s reported speech) because it is still true.

When the situation is still true, then we don’t need to backshift the verb.

He said he HAS three children

But when the situation is NOT still true, then we DO need to backshift the verb.

Imagine your friend says, “I have a headache.”

• If you immediately go and talk to another friend, you could say, “She said she has a headache,” because the situation is still true
• If you’re talking about that conversation a month after it happened, then you would say, “She said she had a headache,” because it’s no longer true.

No backshift needed when the situation is still in the future

We also don’t need to backshift to the verb when somebody said something about the future, and the event is still in the future.

Here’s an example:

• On Monday, my friend said, “I ‘ll call you on Friday .”
• “She said she ‘ll call me on Friday”, because Friday is still in the future from now.
• It is also possible to say, “She said she ‘d (she would) call me on Friday.”
• Both of them are correct, so the backshift in this case is optional.

Let’s look at a different situation:

• On Monday, my friend said, “I ‘ll call you on Tuesday .”
• “She said she ‘d  call me on Tuesday.” I must backshift because the event is NOT still in the future.

Review: Reported Speech, Backshift, & Exceptions

Quick review:

• Normally in reported speech we backshift the verb, we put it in a verb tense that’s a little bit further in the past.
• when the situation is still true
• when the situation is still in the future

Reported Requests, Orders, and Questions

Those were the rules for reported statements, just regular sentences.

What about reported speech for questions, requests, and orders?

For reported requests, we use “asked (someone) to do something”:

• “Please make a copy of this report.” (direct speech)
• She asked me to make a copy of the report. (reported speech)

For reported orders, we use “told (someone) to do something:”

• “Go to the bank.” (direct speech)
• “He told me to go to the bank.” (reported speech)

The main verb stays in the infinitive with “to”:

• She asked me to make a copy of the report. She asked me  make  a copy of the report.
• He told me to go to the bank. He told me  go  to the bank.

For yes/no questions, we use “asked if” and “wanted to know if” in reported speech.

• “Are you coming to the party?” (direct)
• He asked if I was coming to the party. (reported)
• “Did you turn off the TV?” (direct)
• She wanted to know if I had turned off the TV.” (reported)

The main verb changes and back shifts according to the rules and exceptions we learned earlier.

Notice that we don’t use do/does/did in the reported question:

• She wanted to know did I turn off the TV.
• She wanted to know if I had turned off the TV.

For other questions that are not yes/no questions, we use asked/wanted to know (without “if”):

• “When was the company founded?” (direct)
• She asked when the company was founded.” (reported)
• “What kind of car do you drive?” (direct)
• He wanted to know what kind of car I drive. (reported)

Again, notice that we don’t use do/does/did in reported questions:

• “Where does he work?”
• She wanted to know  where does he work.
• She wanted to know where he works.

Also, in questions with the verb “to be,” the word order changes in the reported question:

• “Where were you born?” ([to be] + subject)
• He asked where I was born. (subject + [to be])
• He asked where was I born.

Reported Speech (Part 2) Quiz

Learn more about reported speech:

• Reported speech: Perfect English Grammar
• Reported speech: BJYU’s

If you want to take your English grammar to the next level, then my Advanced English Grammar Course is for you! It will help you master the details of the English language, with clear explanations of essential grammar topics, and lots of practice. I hope to see you inside!

I’ve got one last little exercise for you, and that is to write sentences using reported speech. Think about a conversation you’ve had in the past, and write about it – let’s see you put this into practice right away.

Master the details of English grammar:

More Espresso English Lessons:

About the author.

Shayna Oliveira

Shayna Oliveira is the founder of Espresso English, where you can improve your English fast - even if you don’t have much time to study. Millions of students are learning English from her clear, friendly, and practical lessons! Shayna is a CELTA-certified teacher with 10+ years of experience helping English learners become more fluent in her English courses.

• 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

veterinary surgeon

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

formal for vet

Dead ringers and peas in pods (Talking about similarities, 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

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

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

StoryLearning

Learn A Language Through Stories

A Comprehensive Guide To Reported Speech In English

There are times when someone tells you something and you’ll have to report what they said to someone else.

How can you do this in English?

You’ll need to know how to use what's called reported speech in English and this is what you’ll learn in this blog post.

What Is Reported Speech In English?

Reported speech, also known as indirect speech, is a way of retelling what someone else has said without repeating their exact words. 

For example, let’s say you have a friend called Jon and one called Mary. Mary has organised a house party and has invited you and Jon. 

Jon, however, is not feeling well. He says to you, “Sorry but I cannot come to the party. I spent all day working outside under the rain and I feel ill today.” 

A few days after the party, you meet Sarah. She’s another one of your friends and she was at the party too, but she arrived late – a moment before you left. You only had time to say hello to each other. 

She asks you, “I saw you at the party but I didn’t see Jon. Where was he?”

When Sarah asks you, “Where was Jon?” you can say, 

“Jon said, ‘Sorry but I cannot come to the party. I spent all day working outside under the rain and I feel ill today’.”

However, it would be more natural to use indirect speech in this case. So you would say, “Jon said he couldn’t come to the party. He had spent all day working outside under the rain and he felt ill that day .” 

Did you notice how the sentence changes in reported speech?

Here’s what happened:

• “I” became “he”
• “Cannot” became “couldn’t”
• “Spent” became “had spent”
• “I feel ill today” became “he felt ill on that day” 

Let’s take a closer look at how we form reported speech.

How To Form Reported Speech In English

To form reported speech, you might have to make a few changes to the original sentence that was spoken (or written). 

You may have to change pronouns, verb tenses, place and time expressions and, in the case of questions, the word order.

There are certain patterns to learn for reporting promises, agreements, orders, offers, requests, advice and suggestions.

Let’s have a look at all these cases one by one.

Reported Speech In English: Changing Verb Tenses

In general, when we use reported speech, the present tenses become past tenses.  

We do this because we are often reporting someone else’s words at a different time (Jon’s words were spoken 3 days before you reported them to Sarah).

Here’s an example:

Jenny (on Saturday evening) says,  “I don't like this place. I want to go home now.”(present tenses)

Matt (on Sunday morning) talks to James and says, “Jenny said that she didn't like the place, and she wanted to go home. (past tenses)

So this is how different verb tenses change:

Simple Present → Simple Past

DIRECT: I need money.

INDIRECT: She said she needed money.

Present Progressive → Past Progressive

DIRECT: My French is improving.

INDIRECT: He said his French was improving.

Present Perfect → Past Perfect

DIRECT: This has been an amazing holiday.

INDIRECT: She told me that it had been an amazing holiday.

What if there is a past simple form of the verb in direct speech? Well, in this case, it can stay the same in reported speech or you can change it to past perfect .

Past Simple → Past Simple Or Past Perfect

DIRECT: I didn’t go to work.

INDIRECT: Mary said that she didn’t go to work / Mary said that she hadn’t gone to work 

Past Perfect Tenses Do Not Change

DIRECT: I arrived late because I had missed the bus.

INDIRECT: He said he arrived (or had arrived) late because he had missed the bus.

Modal verbs like “can,” “may,” and “will” also change in reported speech.

Will → Would

DIRECT: The exam will be difficult.

INDIRECT: They said that the exam would be difficult.

Can → Could

DIRECT: I can’t be there.

INDIRECT: He told me he couldn’t be there.

May → Might

DIRECT: We may go there another time.

INDIRECT: They said they might go there another time.

However, past modal verbs don’t change (would, must, could, should, etc.) don’t change in reported speech.

DIRECT: It would be nice if we could go to Paris.

INDIRECT: He said it would be nice if we could go to Paris.

Here are some other examples:

So, in summary, 

• am/is → were
• do/does → did
• have/has → had
• had done → had done
• will → would
• can → could
• may → might
• could → could
• would → would
• like/love/buy/see → liked/loved/bought/saw or had liked/ had loved/had bought/had seen.

You make these verb tense shifts when you report the original words at a different time from when they were spoken. However, it is often also possible to keep the original speaker’s tenses when the situation is still the same.

For example, 

1. DIRECT: I am feeling sick.

   INDIRECT: She said she is feeling sick.

2. DIRECT: We have to leave now.

   INDIRECT: They said they have to leave now.

3. DIRECT: I will call you later.

   INDIRECT: He said he will call me later.

4. DIRECT: She is not coming to the party.

   INDIRECT: He said she is not coming to the party.

5. DIRECT: They are working on a new project.

   INDIRECT: She said they are working on a new project.

What about conditional sentences? How do they change in reported speech?

Sentences with “if” and “would” are usually unchanged.

DIRECT: It would be best if we went there early.

INDIRECT: He said it would be best if they went there early.

But conditional sentences used to describe unreal situations (e.g. second conditional or third conditional sentences) can change like this:

DIRECT: If I had more money I would buy a new car.

INDIRECT: She said if she had had more money, she would have bought a new car OR She said if she had more money, she would buy a new car.

Reported Speech In English: Changing Pronouns

In reported speech, because you’re reporting someone else’s words, there’s a change of speaker so this may mean a change of pronoun.

An example:

Jenny says,  “I don't like this place. I want to go home now.”

Matt says, “Jenny said that she didn't like the place, and she wanted to go home.” 

In this example, Jenny says “I” to refer to herself but Matt, talking about what Jenny said, uses “she”.

So the sentence in reported speech becomes:

• Jenny said that she didn’t like . . . ( not Jenny said that I didn’t like . . .)

Some other examples:

1 . DIRECT: I have been studying for hours.

   INDIRECT: He said he had been studying for hours.

2. DIRECT: I don’t like that movie.

   INDIRECT: She said she didn’t like that movie.

3. DIRECT: He doesn't like coffee.

   INDIRECT: She said he doesn't like coffee.

4. DIRECT: We have a new car.

   INDIRECT: They told me they had a new car.

5. DIRECT: We are going on vacation next week.

    INDIRECT: They said they are going on vacation next week.

Reported Speech In English: Place And Time Expressions

When you’re reporting someone’s words, there is often a change of place and time.  This may mean that you will need to change or remove words that are used to refer to places and time like “here,” “this,” “now,” “today,” “next,” “last,” “yesterday,” “tomorrow,” and so on. 

Check the differences in the following sentences:

DIRECT: I'll be back next month.

INDIRECT: She said she would be back the next month , but I never saw her again.

DIRECT: Emma got her degree last Tuesday.

INDIRECT: He said Emma had got her degree the Tuesday before.

DIRECT: I had an argument with my mother-in-law yesterday .

INDIRECT: He said he’d had an argument with his mother-in-law the day before .

DIRECT: We're going to have an amazing party tomorrow.

INDIRECT: They said they were going to have an amazing party the next day.

DIRECT: Meet me here at 10 am.

INDIRECT: He told me to meet him there at 10 am.

DIRECT: This restaurant is really good.

INDIRECT: She said that the restaurant was really good.

DIRECT: I'm going to the gym now.

INDIRECT: He said he was going to the gym at that time.

DIRECT: Today is my birthday.

INDIRECT: She told me that it was her birthday that day .

DIRECT: I'm leaving for Europe next week.

INDIRECT: She said she was leaving for Europe the following week.

Reported Speech In English: Word Order In Questions

What if you have to report a question? For example, how would you report the following questions?

• Where’s Mark?
• When are you going to visit your grandmother?
• What do I need to buy for the celebration?
• Where are your best friend and his wife staying?
• Do you like coffee?
• Can you sing?
• Who’s your best friend?
• What time do you usually wake up?
• What would you do if you won the lottery?
• Do you ever read nonfiction books?

In reported questions, the subject normally comes before the verb and auxiliary “do” is not used.

So, here is what happens when you're reporting a question:

DIRECT: Where’s Mark?

INDIRECT: I asked where Mark was. 

DIRECT: When are you going to visit your grandmother?

INDIRECT: He wanted to know when I was going to visit my grandmother.

DIRECT: What do I need to buy for the celebration?

INDIRECT: She asked what she needed to buy for the celebration.

DIRECT: Where are your best friend and his wife staying?

INDIRECT: I asked where his best friend and his wife were staying.

DIRECT: Do you like coffee?

INDIRECT: I asked if she liked coffee.

DIRECT: Can you sing?

INDIRECT: She asked me if I could sing.

DIRECT: Who’s your best friend?

INDIRECT: They asked me who my best friend was. 

DIRECT: What time do you usually wake up?

INDIRECT: She asked me what time I usually wake up.

DIRECT: What would you do if you won the lottery?

INDIRECT: He asked me what I would do if I won the lottery.

DIRECT: Do you ever read nonfiction books?

INDIRECT: She asked me if I ever read nonfiction books.

You might have noticed that question marks are not used in reported questions and you don’t use “say” or “tell” either.

Promises, Agreements, Orders, Offers, Requests & Advice

When you’re reporting these, you can use the following verbs + an infinitive:

Here are some examples:

DIRECT SPEECH: I’ll always love you.

PROMISE IN INDIRECT SPEECH: She promised to love me.

DIRECT SPEECH: OK, let’s go to the pub.

INDIRECT SPEECH: He agreed to come to the pub with me.

DIRECT SPEECH: Sit down!

INDIRECT SPEECH: They told me to sit down OR they ordered me to sit down.

DIRECT SPEECH: I can go to the post office for you.

INDIRECT SPEECH: She offered to go to the post office.

DIRECT SPEECH: Could I please have the documentation by tomorrow evening?

INDIRECT SPEECH: She requested to have the documentation by the following evening.

DIRECT SPEECH: You should think twice before giving him your phone number.

INDIRECT SPEECH: She advised me to think twice before giving him my phone number.

Reported Speech In English

All right! I hope you have a much clearer idea about what reported speech is and how it’s used. 

And the good news is that both direct and indirect speech structures are commonly used in stories, so why not try the StoryLearning method ? 

You'll notice this grammatical pattern repeatedly in the context of short stories in English.

Not only will this help you acquire it naturally, but you will also have a fun learning experience by immersing yourself in an interesting and inspiring narrative.

Have a wonderful time learning through books in English !

Language Courses

• Language Blog
• Testimonials
• Meet Our Team
• Media & Press

Download this article as a FREE PDF ?

What is your current level in Swedish?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Swedish tips…

Where shall I send the tips and your PDF?

We will protect your data in accordance with our data policy.

What is your current level in Danish?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Danish tips…

NOT INTERESTED?

What can we do better? If I could make something to help you right now, w hat would it be?

Which language are you learning?

What is your current level in [language] ?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] [language] tips, PLUS your free StoryLearning Kit…

Where shall I send them?

Download this article as a FREE PDF?

Great! Where shall I send my best online teaching tips and your PDF?

Download this article as a FREE PDF ? 

What is your current level in Arabic?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Arabic tips…

FREE StoryLearning Kit!

Join my email newsletter and get FREE access to your StoryLearning Kit — discover how to learn languages through the power of story!

Download a FREE Story in Japanese!

Enter your email address below to get a  FREE short story in Japanese and start learning Japanese quickly and naturally with my StoryLearning® method!

What is your current level in Japanese?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Japanese StoryLearning® Pack …

Where shall I send your download link?

Download Your  FREE   Natural Japanese Grammar Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my Natural Japanese Grammar Pack and learn to internalise Japanese grammar quickly and naturally through stories.

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Natural Japanese Grammar Pack …

What is your current level in Portuguese?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Natural Portuguese Grammar Pack …

What is your current level in German?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Natural German Grammar Pack …

Train as an Online Language Teacher and Earn from Home

The next cohort of my Certificate of Online Language Teaching will open soon. Join the waiting list, and we’ll notify you as soon as enrolment is open!

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Portuguese tips…

What is your current level in Turkish?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Turkish tips…

What is your current level in French?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the French Vocab Power Pack …

What is your current level in Italian?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Italian Vocab Power Pack …

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the German Vocab Power Pack …

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Japanese Vocab Power Pack …

Download Your  FREE Japanese Vocab Power Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my Japanese Vocab Power Pack and learn essential Japanese words and phrases quickly and naturally. (ALL levels!)

Download Your  FREE German Vocab Power Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my German Vocab Power Pack and learn essential German words and phrases quickly and naturally. (ALL levels!)

Download Your  FREE Italian Vocab Power Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my Italian Vocab Power Pack and learn essential Italian words and phrases quickly and naturally. (ALL levels!)

Download Your  FREE French Vocab Power Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my French Vocab Power Pack and learn essential French words and phrases quickly and naturally. (ALL levels!)

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Portuguese StoryLearning® Pack …

What is your current level in Russian?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Natural Russian Grammar Pack …

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Russian StoryLearning® Pack …

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Italian StoryLearning® Pack …

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Natural Italian Grammar Pack …

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the French StoryLearning® Pack …

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Natural French Grammar Pack …

What is your current level in Spanish?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Spanish Vocab Power Pack …

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Natural Spanish Grammar Pack …

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Spanish StoryLearning® Pack …

Where  shall I send them?

What is your current level in Korean?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Korean tips…

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Russian tips…

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Japanese tips…

What is your current level in Chinese?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Chinese tips…

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Spanish tips…

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Italian tips…

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] French tips…

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] German tips…

Download Your  FREE   Natural Portuguese Grammar Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my Natural Portuguese Grammar Pack and learn to internalise Portuguese grammar quickly and naturally through stories.

Download Your  FREE   Natural Russian Grammar Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my Natural Russian Grammar Pack and learn to internalise Russian grammar quickly and naturally through stories.

Download Your  FREE   Natural German Grammar Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my Natural German Grammar Pack and learn to internalise German grammar quickly and naturally through stories.

Download Your  FREE   Natural French Grammar Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my Natural French Grammar Pack and learn to internalise French grammar quickly and naturally through stories.

Download Your  FREE   Natural Italian Grammar Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my Natural Italian Grammar Pack and learn to internalise Italian grammar quickly and naturally through stories.

Download a FREE Story in Portuguese!

Enter your email address below to get a  FREE short story in Brazilian Portuguese and start learning Portuguese quickly and naturally with my StoryLearning® method!

Download a FREE Story in Russian!

Enter your email address below to get a  FREE short story in Russian and start learning Russian quickly and naturally with my StoryLearning® method!

Download a FREE Story in German!

Enter your email address below to get a  FREE short story in German and start learning German quickly and naturally with my StoryLearning® method!

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the German StoryLearning® Pack …

Download a FREE Story in Italian!

Enter your email address below to get a  FREE short story in Italian and start learning Italian quickly and naturally with my StoryLearning® method!

Download a FREE Story in French!

Enter your email address below to get a  FREE short story in French and start learning French quickly and naturally with my StoryLearning® method!

Download a FREE Story in Spanish!

Enter your email address below to get a  FREE short story in Spanish and start learning Spanish quickly and naturally with my StoryLearning® method!

FREE Download:

The rules of language learning.

Enter your email address below to get free access to my Rules of Language Learning and discover 25 “rules” to learn a new language quickly and naturally through stories.

What can we do  better ? If I could make something to help you right now, w hat would it be?

What is your current level in [language]?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level]  [language] tips…

Download Your  FREE Spanish Vocab Power Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my Spanish Vocab Power Pack and learn essential Spanish words and phrases quickly and naturally. (ALL levels!)

Download Your  FREE   Natural Spanish Grammar Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my Natural Spanish Grammar Pack and learn to internalise Spanish grammar quickly and naturally through stories.

Free Step-By-Step Guide:

How to generate a full-time income from home with your English… even with ZERO previous teaching experience.

What is your current level in Thai?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Thai tips…

What is your current level in Cantonese?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Cantonese tips…

Steal My Method?

I’ve written some simple emails explaining the techniques I’ve used to learn 8 languages…

I want to be skipped!

I’m the lead capture, man!

Join 84,574 other language learners getting StoryLearning tips by email…

“After I started to use your ideas, I learn better, for longer, with more passion. Thanks for the life-change!” – Dallas Nesbit

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] [language] tips…

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level]   [language] tips…

Join 122,238 other language learners getting StoryLearning tips by email…

Find the perfect language course for you.

Looking for world-class training material to help you make a breakthrough in your language learning?

Click ‘start now’ and complete this short survey to find the perfect course for you!

Do you like the idea of learning through story?

Do you want…?

• 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

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

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.

English EFL

Reported speech

Changing time and place in reported speech

Time and place must often change when going from direct to reported speech (indirect speech).

In general, personal pronouns change to the third person singular or plural, except when the speaker reports his own words: I/me/my/mine, you/your/yours = him/his/her/hers we/us/our/ours, you/your/yours = they/their/theirs

He said: "I like your new car." = He told her that he liked her new car. I said: "I'm going to my friend's house." = I said that I was going to my friend's house.

If we are in the same place when we report something, then we do not need to make any changes to  place words . But if we are in a different place when we report something, then we need to change the place words. Look at these example sentences:

• He said: "It is cold in  here ." → He said that it was cold in  there .
• He said: "How much is  this book ?" → He asked how much  the book was.

Here are some common place words, showing how you change them for reported speech:

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

Reported Speech (Meaning, Rules, Examples, And FREE Worksheet)

Have you ever wondered how we can share what someone said without using their exact words?

That’s where reported speech comes in.

Whether you’re recounting a story, sharing an interview, or simply conveying what someone said, reported speech adds depth and authenticity to your communication.

In this blog post, we’ll uncover the secrets of transforming direct speech into indirect speech, making conversations come to life in a whole new way.

What Is Reported Speech?

Picture this scenario: your best friend tells you about a great movie he watched. Later, when you’re chatting with another friend, you tell them, “ My best friend said he watched a great movie. ”

Bingo! That’s reported speech.

It’s how we pass along or ‘report’ what someone else has said. Instead of repeating their exact words (that’s called direct speech), we often rephrase things, put them in our own words, or change the tense. 

We use reported speech all the time, often without even realizing it—it’s a key part of how we share information.

In the  English language , reported speech (also known as indirect speech ) is a handy tool, so let’s dig into it some more. 

Don’t worry. We’ll take it step by step!

Reported Speech Rules

Alright, now that we know what reported speech is, let’s talk about the rules. Don’t worry, and it’s not as scary as it sounds. Just like in a football game or a board game, rules help everything flow smoothly. 

Here’s how it works with reported speech:

1. Say Bye To Quotation Marks

When we’re using reported speech, we don’t need quotation marks . Quotation marks are like party guests who show up when we’re quoting someone’s words directly. But for reported speech, we’re rephrasing things, so the quotation marks can take a little break.

2. Change The Tense

Usually, we shift the tenses back. This is because we’re usually talking about something that happened in the past. It’s like time  travel  but with words! If someone said, “I love pizza,” and you reported it, you’d say, “She said she loved pizza.”

3. Adjust Pronouns

Just like you wouldn’t wear your friend’s glasses, we don’t use the same pronouns when we shift to reported speech. We need to change them to match who we’re talking about. If your brother said, “I aced my  IELTS speaking test ,” you would tell your friends, “My brother said he aced his IELTS speaking test.”

4. Time And Place References

If the direct speech mentions a  specific time  or place, you may have to change these references too. So if your friend tells you on a Monday, “I’ll visit you tomorrow,” and you report it on Tuesday, you’d say, “She said she would visit me today.”

Tense Change In Reported Speech

Changes in time and place in reported speech.

When we’re telling someone else about a conversation that happened at another time or place, it’s super important to adjust the time and place references.

It might sound complicated, but once you get the hang of it, it’s really just about making sure everything makes sense.

Let’s check out more examples:

Isn’t it cool how these little changes help keep the timeline clear when we’re sharing past conversations? That way, there’s no mix-up over when or where things happened! It’s one of the many neat tricks that language gives us.

Questions In Reported Speech

You know when someone asks a question, it sounds and looks a certain way, right? Well, when we talk about that question later, we change it up a bit.

We turn the question into a statement.

Sounds tricky? Don’t worry, I’ll explain!

See what we did there? We made those questions smooth out into statements. It’s like ironing the question mark right out of them!

Oh, and one more thing. If the question starts with a question word (like ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘where’), keep it in the reported speech. But if it’s a yes/no question, use ‘if’ or ‘whether.’

Reported Speech Worksheet With Answers

Here are a few reported speech exercises to practice and reinforce your understanding:

Exercise 1: 

Rewrite the following direct speech sentences as reported speech sentences.

• “I love ice cream,” said Emily.
• “Have you finished your homework?” asked the teacher.
• “We’re going on vacation next week,” said Mark.
• “Why didn’t you attend the meeting?” he asked.
• “I will help you with your project,” she promised.
• “I will visit my grandparents next weekend,” said Jack.
• Emily said she loved ice cream.
• The teacher asked if I had finished my homework.
• Mark said they were going on  vacation   the following week.
• He asked why I hadn’t attended the meeting.
• She promised to help me with my project.
• Jack said he would visit his grandparents the following weekend.

Exercise 2: Change the following sentences from reported speech to direct speech.

• He said that he had finished his work.
• She told me that she would call me later.
• They said they were going to the movies.
• The teacher told us to study for the test.
• He said he had seen the movie before.
• “I have finished my work,” he said.
• “I will call you later,” she told me.
• “We are going to the movies,” they said.
• “Study for the test,” the teacher told us.
• “I have seen the movie before,” he said.

FAQs On Reported Speech 

What are the 5 examples of reported speech.

Here are five examples for you:

1. “She’s really tired,” becomes, “He said she was really tired.” 2. “I’ll help you tomorrow,” becomes, “She said she would help me tomorrow.” 3. “I’m reading a great book,” becomes, “He said he was reading a great book.” 4. “We’re going on vacation,” becomes, “They said they were going on vacation.” 5. “I’ve lost my hat,” becomes, “She said she had lost her hat.”

What Are The 3 Most Common Reporting Verbs In Reported Speech?

The three most common reporting verbs are “say,” “tell,” and “ask.” We use these all the time in reported speech!

What Is An Example Of Reported Speech For Kids?

If your friend Billy says, “I have a new bike,” and you want to tell someone else what Billy said, you would use reported speech. You might say, “Billy told me that he had a new bike.”

What Are The 3 Main Elements Of A Reported Speech?

The three main elements are:

1. Pronoun: In reported speech, pronouns are typically changed to match the perspective of the person doing the reporting. For example, first-person pronouns in direct speech (“I,” “we”) become the third person (“he,” “she,” “they”) in reported speech. This keeps the meaning clear when the speaker’s words are reported by someone else.

2. Reporting Verb: This is the verb used to indicate that speech or thought is being reported. Common reporting verbs include “say,” “tell,” “ask,” “think,” and “feel,” among others. The choice of reporting verb can convey additional nuances about how the speech was originally delivered.

3. Tense Shift: Known as “backshifting,” the shifting of tenses is common in reported speech. If the direct speech is in the present tense , it’s customary to shift it to the past tense in reported speech. For instance, “I am happy” would become “she said she was happy.” This shift accurately portrays that the reported action or state happened at a previous time.

These elements work together to convey the original meaning of the speaker’s words while fitting into the grammatical structure of the reporting sentence .

Wrapping Up Reported Speech

Congratulations on completing your journey into the realm of reported speech! 

Remember to adjust pronouns, tenses, and other elements to accurately report speech. 

As you continue to practice and apply what you’ve learned, you’ll become more confident in reporting speech accurately and creatively.

If you’ve found this post helpful, please do follow Hi English Hub   on  Pinterest  and  Twitter  for more linguistic insights, and feel free to share this with others who might also benefit. 

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

• B1-B2 grammar

Reported speech: reporting verbs

Do you know how to tell someone what another person said using reporting verbs? Test what you know with interactive exercises and read the explanation to help you.

Look at these examples to see how reporting verbs are used.

direct speech: 'You should come, it's going to be a lot of fun,' she said. indirect speech: She persuaded me to come. direct speech: 'Wait here,' he said. indirect speech: He told us to wait there. direct speech: 'It wasn't me who finished the coffee,' he said. indirect speech: He denied finishing the coffee.

Try this exercise to test your grammar.

Reported speech 3 – reporting verbs: 1

Grammar explanation

When we tell someone what another person said, we often use the verbs say , tell or ask . These are called 'reporting verbs'. However, we can also use other reporting verbs. Many reporting verbs can be followed by another verb in either an infinitive or an -ing form. 

Reporting verb + infinitive

Verbs like advise , agree , challenge , claim , decide , demand , encourage , invite , offer , persuade , promise , refuse and remind can follow an infinitive pattern.

'Let's see. I'll have the risotto, please.' He decided to have the risotto. 'I'll do the report by Friday, for sure.' She promised to do the report by Friday. 'It's not a good idea to write your passwords down.' They advised us not to write our passwords down.

We can also use an infinitive to report imperatives, with a reporting verb like tell , order , instruct , direct or warn .

'Please wait for me in reception.' The guide told us to wait for her in reception. 'Don't go in there!' The police officer warned us not to go in there.

Reporting verb + -ing form

Verbs like admit , apologise for , complain about , deny , insist on , mention and suggest can follow an -ing form pattern.

'I broke the window.' She admitted breaking the window. 'I'm really sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.' He apologised for not getting back to me sooner. 'Let's take a break.' She suggested taking a break.

Do this exercise to test your grammar again.

Reported speech 3 – reporting verbs: 2

Language level

Would you consider the following structure to be reported speech?

The original sentence went as follows:

- After the procedure the doctors confirmed it was the right thing to have done.

Why am I asking? As far as I know the top notch phrasing should go like this:

- After the procedure the doctors confirmed it HAD BEEN the right thing to have done.

I think so because at that time the doctors must have said something like:

- Doctors confirming after the procedure - It was the right thing to have done, Dominik.

Would you be so kind to comment on this one, please :)

• Log in or register to post comments

Hello Dominik992,

The version that you propose is correct, and, as you mention, is what is taught as best practice in most grammars.

The other version is also fine, however. Especially in more informal speaking and writing, we often use a past simple form when a past perfect form doesn't add any additional or important meaning.

Best wishes, Kirk LearnEnglish team

Hello! I would like to know whether this two sentences are correct. I think they are both correct, but I am not sure.

"He apologized for letting me down." Or: "He apologized for having let me down"

Thank you in advance! GabDip

Hello GabDip,

Yes, both sentences are correct. There is a slight difference in meaning:

Sentence 1 ( for letting ) could be about a particular situation or it could be about his general habit of being unreliable.

Sentence 2 ( for having let ) describes an issue in the past which is not true any more.

The LearnEnglish Team

Hello, i have 2 questions, firstly is the same use advise with verb + object + infinitive that use it with + gerund, it changes the meaning or no? secondly, when we use warn + object + infinitive it has the same meaning that warn somebody against?

Hi facundo62,

For  advise , the meaning is the same with those two structures. For example:

• I'd advise resting as much as you can.
• I'd advise you to rest as much as you can.

However, the structure  advise  + - ing form is less commonly used than the advise + object + to + infinitive structure. 

About  warn , the two structures you mentioned do also have the same meaning. But just to be clear, it's  warn  + object + not + to  + infinitive that has that meaning. For example:

• The doctor warned me not to eat too much.
• The doctor warned me against eating too much.

I hope that helps.

LearnEnglish team

what is the diffrence beetween he suggested to ask andi for some ideas and he suggested asking andi for ideas

"He suggested to ask ..." is not grammatically correct. 

The verb "suggest" is followed by either:

• an - ing  verb form -->  He suggested asking ...  OR
• a  that  clause -->  He suggested  that we ask   ...

"Suggest" is not in the group of verbs that is followed by an infinitive ( to  + verb).

it helped alot thanks

Why can't we say "Katie suggested us going for a walk" but instead should say "KATIE SUGGESTED THAT WE GO FOR A WALK" whilst "The man warned us not to park in this street" is correct. It's unclear why "She suggested us" isn't correct but "The man warned us...." is.

Online courses

Group and one-to-one classes with expert teachers.

Learn English in your own time, at your own pace.

One-to-one sessions focused on a personal plan.

Get the score you need with private and group classes.  

• Grammar Lessons
• Grammar Exercises
• Grammar Quizzes
• Mixed Tests
• PDF Worksheets
• Beginners Lessons
• Easy Worksheets
• Beginners Tests
• Reading Exercises
• Drag & Drop Grammar
• English For Kids
• Kids Word Games
• Picture Vocabulary
• Reading Tests
• Short Dialogues
• Short Sentences
• Closest in Meaning
• Irrelevant Sentence
• ESL Paragraphs
• GRE Reading
• Text Completion
• GRE Equivalence
• SAT Sentence
• Essay Writing
• Vocabulary Exercises
• Study Skills Tips
• Drag & Drop Vocab

Reported Speech / Indirect Speech

Direct speech:

Indirect speech / reported speech:, convert direct speech to indirect speech, indirect speech statements, mixed types, common verbs used with reported speech.

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

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?

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Reported Speech

Reported Speech How does it Work?

Indirect speech or Reported speech is just a way of expressing your intent in questions, statements or other phrases, without essentially quoting them outrightly as the way it is done in indirect speech.

Reported Speech Rules

To understand Reported Speech Grammar and Reported Verbs, you need to first understand reported speech rules and how it works. Here are some types of reported speech:

Reported Statements

Reported speech is used when someone says a sentence, like, "I'm going to the movie tonight". Later, we want to tell a 3rd person what the first person is doing.

It works like this:

We use a reporting verb i.e 'say' or 'tell'. In the present tense, just put in 'he says.

Direct Speech: I like burgers.

Reported Speech: He says (that) he likes burgers.

You don't need to change the tense, but you do need to switch the 'person' from 'I' to 'he’. You also need to change words like 'my' and 'your'.

But, in case the reporting verb is in the past tense, then change the tenses in the reported speech itself.

Reported Questions

Reported questions to go like 

Direct Speech: Where do you reside?

We make the change to reported speech by-

It is similar to reported statements. The tense changes are exact, and we keep the question’s word. But we need to change the grammar of that normal sentence into positive. For eg:

Reported Speech: He asked me where I resided.

The direct speech question is in the present simple tense. We make a present simple question with 'do' or 'does'. For that, I need to take that away. Then change the verb to the past simple. 

Direct Speech: Where is Jolly?

Reported Speech: He asked me where Jolly was.

The direct question is the present simple of 'be'. We change the question form of the present simple of being by changing the position of the subject and the verb. So, change them back before putting the verb into the past simple.

Here Are Some More Examples

Reported Requests

The reported speech goes a long way. What if a person asks you to do something politely or make a request? It’s called a reported request. For example

Direct Speech: Close the door, please / Could you close the door please? / Would you mind closing the door, please?

All these requests mean the same, so we don't need to report every word there when we tell a 3rd person about it. 

We can simply use 'ask me + to + infinitive':

Reported Speech: They asked me to close the door.

Direct Speech: Please be punctual.

Reported Speech: They asked us to be punctual.

Reported Orders

And lastly, how about when someone doesn't ask that politely? This is known as an 'order' in English, which is when someone tells you to do something pretty much directly. This is called a reported order. For example

Direct Speech: Stand up right now!

We make this into a reported speech in the same way as that for a request. Just use 'tell' rather than 'ask':

Reported Speech: She told me to stand up right now.

Time Expressions within the Ambit of Reported Speech

Sometimes when we want to change the direct speech into reported speech, we will have to change the time expressions too. We don't necessarily always have to do that. However, It depends on when we heard the speech in indirect form and when we said the speech in reported form. 

For Example,

It's Sunday. Kiran Ma’am says "I'm leaving today".

If You tell someone on Sunday, You will say "Kiran Ma’am said she was leaving today".

If you tell someone on Tuesday, You will say "Kiran Ma’am said she was leaving yesterday".

If you tell someone on Friday, you will say "Kiran Ma’am said she was leaving on Sunday ".

If you tell someone a month later, you will say "Kiran Ma’am said she was leaving that day".

So, technically there's no easy way to convert. You need to put in real effort and have to think about it when the direct speech is said.

Here's a Table of How Some Conversions can be Made 

now can be converted to then / at that time

today can be converted to yesterday / that day / Tuesday / the 27 th of June

yesterday can be converted to the day before yesterday / the day before / Wednesday / the 5th of December

last night can be converted to the night before, Thursday night

last week can be converted to the week before / the previous week

tomorrow can be converted to today / the next day / the following day / Friday

Now Let us Check our Understanding Through this Table

This is all about reported speech. English grammar is a tricky thing given both the rules and practice. Reading these rules solely will not help you to get a strong grasp of them. You also have to practice reported speech sentences in practical life to know how and when they can be used.

FAQs on Reported Speech

1. How to convert present tenses to reported speech and give some examples.

There are certain rules to follow while converting sentences to reported speech. We need to manage tenses also.

Usually, the present sentences change to simple past tense.

Ex: I do yoga every morning

She said that she did yoga every morning.

I play cricket a lot

He said that he played cricket a lot 

Usually The present continuous tense changes to the past continuous tense. 

Ex: My friend is watching a movie.

She said that her friend was watching a movie.

We are eating dinner

They said that they were eating dinner.

Usually, the  Present Perfect Tense changes into Past Perfect Tense

Ex: I have been to the USA

She told me that she had been to the USA.

She has finished her task.

She said that she had finished her task.

Usually the Present Perfect Progressive Tense changes into Past Perfect Tense

2. How to convert present tenses to reported speech and give some examples.

Usually the Past Simple Tense changes into the Past Perfect Tense.

Ex: He arrived on Friday

He said that he had arrived on Friday.

My mom enjoyed the stay here

He said that his mom had enjoyed the stay there.

Usually, the Past Progressive Tense changes into the Perfect Continuous Tense

Ex: I was playing the cricket

He said that he had been playing cricket.

My husband was cooking

She said that her husband had been cooking.

Usually, the Past Perfect Tense doesn’t change.

Ex: She had worked hard.

She said that she had worked hard.

And also the Past Perfect Progressive Tense doesn’t change.

3. State the rules for conversion of future tenses into reported speech

There are rules to follow while converting the future tenses to reported speech.

In general, the Future Simple Tense changes into would. And also the future Progressive Tense changes into “would be”. The Future Perfect Tense changes into “would have”. The Future Perfect Progressive Tense changes into “would have been”.

Ex: I will be attending the wedding.

She said that she would be attending the wedding.

4. Give examples for conversion of  ‘can ‘, ‘can’t’ and ‘will’,’’won’t’ 

5. Give some examples for reported requests and reported orders.  

Watch CBS News

House passes legislation that could ban TikTok in the U.S.

Updated on: April 20, 2024 / 11:42 PM EDT / AP

The House passed legislation Saturday that would ban TikTok in the United States if the popular social media platform's China-based owner doesn't sell its stake within a year, but don't expect the app to go away anytime soon.

The decision by House Republicans to include TikTok as part of a larger foreign aid package , a priority for President Joe Biden with broad congressional support for Ukraine and Israel, fast-tracked the ban after an earlier version had stalled in the Senate. A standalone bill with a six-month selling deadline passed the House in March by an overwhelming bipartisan vote as both Democrats and Republicans voiced national security concerns about the app's owner, the Chinese technology firm ByteDance Ltd .

The modified measure, passed by a 360-58 vote, now goes to the Senate after negotiations that produced a compromise.

Even if the legislation becomes law, though, the company would have up to a year to find a buyer and would likely try to challenge the law in court, arguing it would deprive the app's millions of users of their First Amendment rights. Court challenges could significantly delay the timeline set out by Congress or block the law from going into effect.

The company lobbied hard against the legislation, pushing the app's 170 million U.S. users — many of whom are young — to call Congress and voice opposition. But the ferocity of the pushback angered lawmakers on Capitol Hill, where there is broad concern about Chinese threats to the U.S. and where few members use the platform themselves.

"We will not stop fighting and advocating for you," TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew said in a video that was posted on the platform last month and directed toward the app's users. "We will continue to do all we can, including exercising our legal rights, to protect this amazing platform that we have built with you."

The bill's quick path through Congress is extraordinary because it targets one company and because Congress has taken a hands-off approach to tech regulation for decades. Lawmakers have failed to act despite efforts to protect children online , safeguard users' privacy and make companies more liable for content posted on their platforms, among other measures.

The TikTok ban reflects widespread concerns from lawmakers about China.

Members of both parties, along with intelligence officials, have worried that Chinese authorities could force ByteDance to hand over American user data or direct the company to suppress or boost TikTok content favorable to its interests. TikTok has denied assertions that it could be used as a tool of the Chinese government and has said it has not shared U.S. user data with Chinese authorities.

The U.S. government has not publicly provided evidence that shows TikTok shared U.S. user data with the Chinese government or tinkered with the company's popular algorithm, which influences what Americans see.

The company has good reason to think a legal challenge could be successful, having seen some success in previous legal fights over its operations in the U.S.. In November, a federal judge blocked a Montana law that would ban TikTok use across the state after the company and five content creators who use the platform sued.

In 2020, federal courts blocked an executive order issued by then-President Donald Trump to ban TikTok after the company sued on the grounds that the order violated free speech and due process rights. His administration brokered a deal that would have had U.S. corporations Oracle and Walmart take a large stake in TikTok. The sale never went through for a number of reasons; one was China, which imposed stricter export controls on its technology providers.

Dozens of states and the federal government have put in place TikTok bans on government devices . Texas' ban was challenged last year by The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which argued in a lawsuit that the policy was impeding academic freedom because it extended to public universities. In December, a federal judge ruled in favor of the state.

Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union have backed the app. "Congress cannot take away the rights of over 170 million Americans who use TikTok to express themselves, engage in political advocacy, and access information from around the world," said Jenna Leventoff, a lawyer for the group.

Since mid-March, TikTok has spent $5 million on TV ads opposing the legislation, according to AdImpact, an advertising tracking firm. The ads have included a range of content creators, including a nun, extolling the positive impacts of the platform on their lives and arguing a ban would trample on the First Amendment. The company has also encouraged its users to contact Congress, and some lawmakers have received profanity-laced calls.

"It is unfortunate that the House of Representatives is using the cover of important foreign and humanitarian assistance to once again jam through a ban bill that would trample the free speech rights of 170 million Americans, devastate 7 million businesses, and shutter a platform that contributes $24 billion to the U.S. economy, annually," said Alex Haurek, a spokesman for the company.

Nadya Okamoto, a content creator who has roughly 4 million followers on TikTok, said she has been having conversations with other creators who are experiencing "so much anger and anxiety" about the bill and how it's going to impact their lives. The 26-year-old, whose company "August" sells menstrual products and is known for her advocacy around destigmatizing menstrual periods, makes most of her income from TikTok.

"This is going to have real repercussions," she said.

More from CBS News

After Biden signs TikTok ban into law, ByteDance says it won't sell

Why U.S. officials want to ban TikTok

Biden signs foreign aid bill, clearing the way for new weapons for Ukraine

TikTok could soon be sold. Here's how much it's worth.

Justices Seem Ready to Limit the 2020 Election Case Against Trump

Such a ruling in the case, on whether the former president is immune from prosecution, would probably send it back to a lower court and could delay any trial until after the November election.

• Share full article

Charlie Savage and Alan Feuer

Charlie Savage reported from Washington, and Alan Feuer from New York.

Here are four takeaways from the Supreme Court hearing on Trump’s claim to immunity.

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday about Donald J. Trump’s claim that the federal charges accusing him of plotting to overturn the 2020 election must be thrown out because he is immune from being prosecuted for any official act he took as president.

Here are some takeaways.

Several justices seemed to want to define some level of official act as immune.

Although Mr. Trump’s claim of near-absolute immunity was seen as a long shot intended primarily to slow the proceedings, several members of the Republican-appointed majority seemed to indicate that some immunity was needed. Some of them expressed worry about the long-term consequences of leaving future former presidents open to prosecution for their official actions.

Among others, Justice Brett Kavanaugh compared the threat of prosecution for official acts to how a series of presidents were “hampered” by independent counsel investigations, criticizing a 1984 ruling that upheld a now-defunct law creating such prosecutors as one of the Supreme Court’s biggest mistakes. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. criticized an appeals court ruling rejecting immunity for Mr. Trump, saying he was concerned that it “did not get into a focused consideration of what acts we are talking about or what documents are talking about.”

“It’s a serious constitutional question whether a statute can be applied to the president’s official acts. So wouldn’t you always interpret the statute not to apply to the president, even under your formulation, unless Congress had spoken with some clarity?” “I don’t think across the board that as serious constitutional question exists on applying any criminal statute to the president.” “The problem is the vague statute — obstruction and 371, conspiracy to defraud the United States can be used against a lot of presidential activities historically with a creative prosecutor who wants to go after a president.” “I think that the question about the risk is very serious. And obviously it is a question that this court has to evaluate. For the executive branch, our view is that there is a balanced protection that better serves the interests of the Constitution that incorporates both accountability and protection for the president.”

The Democrat-appointed justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — asked questions indicating greater concern about opening the door for presidents to commit official crimes with impunity.

“This is what you’re asking us to say, which is that a president is entitled not to make a mistake — but more than that, a president is entitled for total personal gain to use the trappings of his office. That’s what you’re trying to get us to hold — without facing criminal liability.” “Your honor, I would say three things in response to that. First, the doctrine that immunity does not turn on the allegedly improper motivation or purpose is something that this court has reaffirmed in at least nine or 10 —” “That’s absolute immunity. But qualified immunity does say that whatever act you take has to be within what a reasonable person would do. I’m having a hard time thinking that creating false documents, that submitting false documents, that ordering the assassination of a rival, that accepting a bribe, and countless other laws that could be broken for personal gain, that anyone would say that it would be reasonable for a president or any public official to do that.”

The arguments signaled further delay and complications for a Trump trial.

If the Supreme Court does place limits on the ability of prosecutors to charge Mr. Trump over his official actions, it could alter the shape of his trial.

A decision to send all or part of the case back to the lower courts could further slow progress toward a trial, increasing the odds that it does not start before Election Day.

Of the matters listed in the indictment, some — like working with private lawyers to gin up slates of fraudulent electors — seem like the private actions of a candidate. Others — like pressuring the Justice Department and Vice President Mike Pence to do things — seem more like official acts he took in his role as president.

At one point, Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that prosecutors could simply drop Mr. Trump’s arguably official actions from their case and proceed to a swift trial focused only on his private actions. And D. John Sauer, the lawyer for Mr. Trump, told the court that no evidence of Mr. Trump’s official actions should be allowed into the trial.

But Michael R. Dreeben, a Justice Department lawyer arguing on behalf of the special counsel’s office, said the indictment laid out an “integrated conspiracy” in which Mr. Trump took the official actions to bolster the chances that his other efforts to overturn the election would succeed.

He argued that even if the court holds that Mr. Trump has immunity from liability for his official actions, prosecutors should still be allowed to present evidence about them to the jury because the actions are relevant to assessing his larger knowledge and intentions — just as speech that is protected by the First Amendment can still be used as evidence in a conspiracy case.

The hearing revolved around two very different ways of looking at the issue.

Looming over the hearing was a sweeping moral question: What effect might executive immunity have on the future of American politics?

Not surprisingly, the two sides saw things very differently.

Mr. Sauer claimed that without immunity, all presidents would be paralyzed by the knowledge that once they were out of office, they could face an onslaught of charges from their rivals based on the tough calls they had to make while in power. He pictured a dystopian world of ceaseless tit-for-tat political prosecutions that would destroy the “presidency as we know it.”

If a president can be charged, put on trial and imprisoned for his most controversial decisions as soon as he leaves office, that looming threat will distort the president’s decision-making precisely when bold and fearless action is most needed. Every current president will face de facto blackmail and extortion by his political rivals while he is still in office. The implications of the court’s decision here extend far beyond the facts of this case. Could President George W. Bush have been sent to prison for obstructing an official proceeding or allegedly lying to Congress to induce war in Iraq? Could President Obama be charged with murder for killing U.S. citizens abroad by drone strike? Could President Biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies? The answer to all these questions is no.

Envisioning the opposite scenario, Mr. Dreeben worried that any form of blanket immunity would place presidents entirely outside of the rule of law and encourage them to commit crimes, including “bribery, treason, sedition, even murder,” with impunity.

“The framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong,” he said.

This court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official. Petitioner, however, claims that a former president has permanent criminal immunity for his official acts unless he was first impeached and convicted. His novel theory would immunize former presidents for criminal liability; for bribery, treason, sedition, murder and here, conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. Such presidential immunity has no foundation in the Constitution. The framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong.

Both sides found advocates for their positions on the court.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. clearly seemed worried that without some form of criminal immunity, former presidents would be vulnerable to partisan warfare as their successors used the courts to go after them once they were out of office. And that, he added, could lead to endless cycles of retribution that would be a risk to “stable, democratic society.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared more concerned that if presidents were in fact shielded by immunity, they would be unbounded by the law and could turn the Oval Office into what she described as “the seat of criminality.”

If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes, I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminal activity in this country? If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate, because O.L.C. has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning. But once we say no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want, I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.

What happens next?

There did not seem to be a lot of urgency among the justices — especially the conservative ones — to ensure that the immunity question was resolved quickly. That left open the possibility that Mr. Trump could avoid being tried on charges of plotting to overturn the last election until well after voters went to the polls to decide whether to choose him as president in this election.

And if he is elected, any trial could be put off while he is in office, or he could order the charges against him dropped.

It could take some time for the court to do its own analysis of what presidential acts should qualify for the protections of immunity. And even if the justices determine that at least some of the allegations against Mr. Trump are fair game for prosecution, if they do not issue a ruling until late June or early July, it could be difficult to hold a trial before November.

That would become all but impossible if the court took a different route and sent the analysis back to the trial judge, Tanya S. Chutkan. If Judge Chutkan were ordered to hold further hearings on which of the indictment’s numerous allegations were official acts of Mr. Trump’s presidency and which were private acts he took as a candidate for office, the process could take months and last well into 2025.

Aishvarya Kavi

Reporting from Washington

A spectacle outside the Supreme Court for Trump’s defenders and detractors.

Just as the Supreme Court began considering on Thursday morning whether former President Donald J. Trump was entitled to absolute immunity, rap music started blaring outside the court.

The lyrics, laced with expletives, denounced Mr. Trump, and several dozen demonstrators began chanting, “Trump is not above the law!”

Mr. Trump was not in Washington on Thursday morning — in fact, he was in another courtroom , in New York. But the spectacle that pierced the relative tranquillity outside the court was typical of events that involve him: demonstrations, homemade signs, police, news media, and lots and lots of curious onlookers.

One man, Stephen Parlato, a retired mental health counselor from Boulder, Colo., held a roughly 6-foot-long sign with a blown-up photo of Mr. Trump scowling that read, “Toxic loser.” The back of the sign featured the famous painting by Cassius Marcellus Coolidge of dogs playing poker, adorned with the words, “Faith erodes … in a court with no binding ethics code.” He made the sign at FedEx, he said.

The Supreme Court’s decision to even hear the case, which has delayed Mr. Trump’s election interference trial , was “absurd,” he said.

“I’m a child of the late ’60s and early ’70s and the Vietnam War,” said Mr. Parlato, dressed in a leather jacket and cowboy hat. “I remember protesting that while in high school. But this is very different. I’m here because I’m terrified of the possibility of a second Trump presidency.”

Inside the court, Jack Smith sat to the far right of the lawyer arguing on behalf of his team of prosecutors, Michael R. Dreeben, a leading expert in criminal law who has worked for another special counsel who investigated Mr. Trump, Robert S. Mueller III.

Among those in attendance were Jane Sullivan Roberts, who is married to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Ashley Estes Kavanaugh, who is married to Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

In an orderly line outside along the side of the court, people were calmly waiting to listen to the arguments from the court’s public gallery. More than 100 people, many of them supporters of Mr. Trump, were in line as of 8:30 a.m. Reagan Pendarvis, 19, who had been waiting there since the middle of the night, said the first person in line had gotten there more than a day before the arguments began.

Mr. Pendarvis, a sophomore at the University of California, San Diego who is living in Washington for the spring semester, was wearing a black suit and bright red bow tie. He said he had been struggling to keep warm since he took his place in line.

Mr. Pendarvis, a supporter of Mr. Trump, said he thought that the cases brought against the former president were an uneven application of the law.

“I think a lot of the cases, especially that happen for Donald Trump, don’t really happen for Democrats on the other side,” he said. “That’s just my take on it.”

David Bolls, 42, and his brother, Jonathan, 43, both of Springfield, Va., also in line for the arguments, also contended that the prosecutions against Mr. Trump were an abuse of judicial power.

“For me, I want to see an even application of justice,” David Bolls said.

For others in line, the Supreme Court’s deliberations were not the main draw. Ellen Murphy, a longtime Washington resident, was trying to sell buttons she designs, though she acknowledged that it was unlikely she would be allowed in with all of her merchandise.

Dozens of the buttons, which said, “Immunize democracy now” and “Trump is toast” over a toaster with two slices of bread, were pinned to a green apron she was wearing.

“We lose our democracy,” Ms. Murphy said, “if the president can do whatever he wants just because he’s president.”

Eileen Sullivan contributed reporting.

Advertisement

Adam Liptak

What’s next: Much will turn on how quickly the court acts.

The justices heard arguments in the immunity case at a special session, the day after what had been the last scheduled argument of its term. Arguments heard in late April almost always yield decisions near the end of the court’s term, in late June or early July.

But a ruling in early summer, even if it categorically rejected Mr. Trump’s position, would make it hard to complete his trial before the election. Should Mr. Trump win at the polls, there is every reason to think he would scuttle the prosecution.

In cases that directly affected elections — in which the mechanisms of voting were at issue — the court has sometimes acted with unusual speed.

In 2000, in Bush v. Gore, the court issued its decision handing the presidency to George W. Bush the day after the justices heard arguments.

In a recent case concerning Mr. Trump’s eligibility to appear on Colorado’s primary ballot, the justices moved more slowly, but still at a relatively brisk pace. The court granted Mr. Trump’s petition seeking review just two days after he filed it , scheduled arguments for about a month later and issued its decision in his favor about a month after that.

In United States v. Nixon, the 1974 decision that ordered President Richard M. Nixon to comply with a subpoena for audiotapes of conversations with aides in the White House, the court also moved quickly , granting the special prosecutor’s request to bypass the appeals court a week after it was filed.

The court heard arguments about five weeks later — compared with some eight weeks in Mr. Trump’s immunity case. It issued its decision 16 days after the argument , and the trial was not delayed.

Abbie VanSickle

The oral argument lasted nearly three hours, as the justices tangled with a lawyer for the former president and a Justice Department lawyer. A majority of the justices appeared skeptical of the idea of sweeping presidential immunity. However, several of them suggested an interest in drawing out what actions may be immune and what may not — a move that could delay the former president’s trial if the Supreme Court asks a lower court to revisit the issues.

Many of the justices seemed to be considering the idea that presidents should enjoy some form of protection against criminal prosecution. The devil, however, will be in the details: How should that protection extend?

And that question will have profound relevance not only for future presidents, but much more immediately for Donald Trump. The court could decide to draw those rules itself in a broad way for history. Or it could send this case back to a lower court to set the rules of what form immunity could take. If the case is sent back for further proceedings, it could have a dramatic effect on the timing of Trump’s trial, pushing it well past the election in November.

Looking back, one of the main points of discussion turned on the question of which situation would be worse: a world in which presidents, shorn of any legal protections against prosecution, were ceaselessly pursued in the courts by their rivals in a never-ending cycle of political retribution, or allowing presidents to be unbounded by criminal law and permitted to do whatever they wanted with impunity.

Charlie Savage

Sauer, Trump’s attorney, declines to offer a rebuttal. The argument is over.

If the court finds that there is some immunity for official actions, one of the most important questions will be whether prosecutors can still present evidence to the jury of Trump’s official actions (like pressuring the Justice Department and Vice President Mike Pence to do certain things) as evidence that helps illuminate Trump’s knowledge and intent for his private acts as a candidate. Dreeben says the jury needs to understand the whole “integrated conspiracy” but prosecutors would accept a jury instruction in which the judge would say they cannot impose liability for the official actions but may consider them as evidence of his knowledge and intent for the other actions. That’s how courts handle protected speech that is evidence to a larger conspiracy, he notes.

Justice Barrett picks up the question of timing again. She suggests that if prosecutors want to take Trump quickly to trial, they could simply drop those parts of the indictment that seem to be his official acts as president and proceed with only those parts of the indictment that reflect Trump’s private actions taken as a candidate for office. Dreeben is not wild about that idea.

Dreeben suggests that allegations in the “private acts bucket,” as Justice Jackson just called it, would include things like the scheme to create fake electors and the way in which Trump fomented a mob of his supporters to violently attack the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Justice Barrett seems to signal that she is less likely to find that presidents have blanket immunity for their official acts. When Dreeben says the system needs to balance the effective functioning of the presidency and accountability for a former president under the rule of law, and the existing system does that pretty well or maybe needs a few ancillary rules but that is different from the “radical proposal” put forward by Trump’s legal team, she says: “I agree.”

Dreeben, in a balancing act that seems to acknowledge that the court is looking for some form of criminal immunity for presidents, says he is trying to do two things at once, neither of them easy. He wants to design a system to find some rules that preserve the “effective functioning of the presidency” but that still allows for “accountability” if presidents violated the law.

Kavanaugh asks Dreeben about Obama’s drone strike that killed an American citizen suspected of terrorism, Anwar al-Awlaki, which Trump’s lawyer invoked in his opening. Dreeben notes that the Office of Legal Counsel analyzed the question and found that the murder statute did not apply to presidents when they were acting under public authority, so authorizing the strike was lawful. This is the way the system can function, he said — the Justice Department analyzes laws carefully and with established principles.

Justice Kavanaugh signals that he is likely to find that presidents must have immunity for their official actions. He talks about how the threat of prosecution by independent counsels (under a law that lapsed in 1999) hampered Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton, and says a 1984 ruling upholding that structure as constitutional was one of the Supreme Court’s biggest mistakes. (Notably, Kavanaugh was a prosecutor on the staff of independent counsel Ken Starr during his investigation into President Bill Clinton, before becoming a White House lawyer under President George W. Bush.)

Dreeben tries to push back on Kavanaugh’s argument by saying that even after Watergate, even after all of the independent counsel investigations mentioned above, the legal system has survived without “having gone off on a runaway train” of actual criminal prosecutions against former presidents.

The Supreme Court rejected Bill Clinton’s claim of immunity.

In Clinton v. Jones in 1997, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed a sexual harassment suit against President Bill Clinton to proceed while he was in office, discounting concerns that it would distract him from his official responsibilities. Both of his appointees, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, voted against him.

“The president is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court, adding, “We have never suggested that the president, or any other official, has an immunity that extends beyond the scope of any action taken in an official capacity.”

The case was in one sense harder than the one against Mr. Trump, as it involved a sitting president. In another sense, though, it was easier, as it concerned an episode said to have taken place before Mr. Clinton took office (Paula Jones, an Arkansas state employee, said Mr. Clinton had made lewd advances in a hotel room when he was governor of the state).

The case is best remembered for a prediction in Justice Stevens’s majority opinion that “it appears to us highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of petitioner’s time.” In fact, it led to Mr. Clinton’s impeachment.

In the same paragraph, Justice Stevens made a second prediction.

“In the more than 200-year history of the Republic, only three sitting presidents have been subjected to suits for their private actions,” he wrote. “If the past is any indicator, it seems unlikely that a deluge of such litigation will ever engulf the presidency.”

Suits against Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman were dismissed, and one against President John F. Kennedy involving a car accident during his 1960 campaign was settled. The case against Mr. Clinton added a fourth.

Justice Stevens, who died in 2019, failed to anticipate the enormous volume of civil and criminal litigation in which Mr. Trump and his businesses have been named as defendants.

We are now over the two-hour mark of the Supreme Court’s arguments in the Trump immunity case. The Justice Department lawyer has continued to face skeptical questions from many of the court’s conservatives, several of whom appear particularly focused on how to draw the line between a president’s core powers and non-core powers. In other words, what actions by a president might be shielded from prosecution and what would not. The questioning suggests that some of the justices may favor a ruling that could lead to more lower-court proceedings, perhaps delaying the trial.

The Supreme Court’s relatively new process (coming out of Covid) of letting each justice ask questions at the end in order of seniority has an interesting consequence, as seen here. Dreeben kept wanting to say these things about government legal memos and to go into the details about the actions Trump is accused of taking, but the Republican-appointed justices kept cutting him off. It’s the turn of Kagan, a Democratic appointee, to ask any final questions she wants, and she is letting him talk on and on.

Much of the discussion this morning has swirled around the question of whether, without immunity, presidents will be hounded by their rivals with malicious charges after leaving office. Alito and other conservatives on the court seem concerned that the Trump prosecutions will open the door to endless attacks against future presidents.

The other main topic of discussion has been whether presidents enjoy some form of immunity for carrying out their official duties and, if so, how those official actions are defined. That’s an important question for the Trump election case because Trump has claimed he was acting in his role as president when, by his own account, he sought to root out fraud in the 2020 vote count. It’s also important for a different reason: the justices could send the official acts question back to a lower court to sort out, and that process could take a long time, delaying the case's trial until after this year’s election.

Justice Alito suggests that there is a risk to our stable democracy if presidents who lose close elections would not be allowed to retire in peace but could face prosecution. He has essentially flipped the situation under consideration upside down: that Trump is being prosecuted for having used fraud to remain in power after losing a close election.

A part of this exchange between Justice Alito and the Justice Department's lawyer, Dreeben, gets at a pressure point in American-style democracy and the rule of law. One of the safeguards against illegitimate prosecutions of ex-presidents, Dreeben says, is that if the Justice Department has advised the president that doing something would be lawful, the department could not later turn around and prosecute the now-former president for relying on that advice and doing that thing.

Alito points out that this creates an incentive for presidents to appoint attorneys general who will just tell them that anything they want to do would be legal. Indeed — that is a critique of the Office of Legal Counsel system, in which politically appointed lawyers decide what the law means for the executive branch.

An example: During the George W. Bush administration, memos about post-9/11 surveillance and torture were written by a politically appointed lawyer with idiosyncratically broad views of a president’s supposed power, as commander in chief, to authorize violations of surveillance and torture laws. The Justice Department later withdrew those memos as espousing a false view of the law, but held that officials who had taken action based on those memos could not be charged with crimes.

Justice Alito suggests there are not enough legal safeguards in place to protect presidents against malicious prosecution if they don’t have some form of immunity. He tells Dreeben that the grand jury process isn’t much of a protection because prosecutors, as the saying goes, can indict a ham sandwich. When Dreeben tries to argue that prosecutors sometimes don’t indict people who don’t deserve it, Alito dismissively says, “Every once in a while there’s an eclipse too.”

If you are just joining in, the justices are questioning the Justice Department lawyer, Michael Dreeben, about the government’s argument that former President Trump is not absolutely immune from prosecution on charges that he plotted to subvert the 2020 election. Dreeben has faced skeptical questions from several of the conservative justices, including both Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, who have suggested that the fraud conspiracy statute being used against the former president is vague. That statute is central to the government’s case against Trump.

Justice Alito now joins Justice Kavanaugh in suggesting that the fraud conspiracy statute is very vague and broadly drawn. That is bad news for the indictment brought against Trump by Jack Smith, the special counsel.

The scope and viability of this fraud statute, which is absolutely central to the Trump indictment, wasn’t on the menu of issues seemingly at play in this hearing. Kavanaugh and Alito appear to have gone out of their way to question its use in the Trump case.

Justice Sotomayor points out that under the Trump team’s theory that a criminal statute has to clearly state that it applies to the presidency for it to cover a president’s official actions, there would essentially be no accountability at all. Because only a tiny handful of laws mention the president, that means a president could act contrary to them without violating them. As a result, the Senate could not even impeach a president for violating criminal statutes, she says — because he would not be violating those laws if they don’t apply to the president.

Dreeben is under heavy fire from the court’s conservatives.

The precedent most helpful to Trump: Nixon v. Fitzgerald.

In 1982, in Nixon v. Fitzgerald , the Supreme Court ruled that former President Richard M. Nixon had absolute immunity from civil lawsuits — ones brought by private litigants seeking money — for conduct “within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.”

The ruling is helpful to former President Donald J. Trump, establishing as it does that immunity can be expansive, lives on after a president leaves office and extends to the very limits of what may be said to be official conduct.

But the decision also falls well short of dictating the outcome in the case that is being argued on Thursday, which concerns a criminal prosecution, not a civil suit.

The 1982 case arose from a lawsuit brought by an Air Force analyst, A. Ernest Fitzgerald, who said he was fired in 1970 in retaliation for his criticism of cost overruns. By the time the Supreme Court acted, Nixon had been out of office for several years.

“In view of the special nature of the president’s constitutional office and functions,” Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote for the majority 5-to-4 decision, “we think it appropriate to recognize absolute presidential immunity from damages liability” for Nixon’s official conduct, broadly defined.

But the decision drew a sharp line between civil suits, which it said can be abusive and harassing, and criminal prosecutions like the one Mr. Trump is facing.

“In view of the visibility of his office and the effect of his actions on countless people, the president would be an easily identifiable target for suits for civil damages,” Justice Powell wrote, adding, “The court has recognized before that there is a lesser public interest in actions for civil damages than, for example, in criminal prosecutions.”

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger underscored the point in a concurring opinion. “The immunity is limited to civil damages claims,” he wrote.

Even in the context of civil suits, Nixon v. Fitzgerald conferred immunity only on conduct within the “outer perimeter” of a president’s official duties. Jack Smith, the special counsel, has said that Mr. Trump’s efforts to subvert democracy are well outside that line.

The Justice Department has already granted sitting presidents immunity while they are in office.

Former President Donald J. Trump’s claim that former presidents must enjoy “complete immunity” from prosecution for any crimes they committed in office would significantly expand the temporary immunity that sitting presidents already have.

Nothing in the Constitution or federal statutes says that presidents are shielded from being prosecuted while in office, and no court has ever ruled that way. But political appointees in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, whose interpretations are binding on the executive branch, have declared that the Constitution implicitly establishes such immunity.

This argument boils down to practicalities of governance: The stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to carry out his duties, Robert G. Dixon Jr. , then the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, wrote in a memo in September 1973 . This would prevent the executive branch “from accomplishing its constitutional functions” in a way that cannot “be justified by an overriding need,” he added.

Mr. Dixon, an appointee of President Richard M. Nixon, wrote his memo against the backdrop of the Watergate scandal, when Mr. Nixon faced a criminal investigation by a special counsel, Archibald Cox. The next month, Nixon’s solicitor general, Robert H. Bork , in a court brief , similarly argued for an “inference” that the Constitution makes sitting presidents immune from indictment and trial.

(That same month, Mr. Nixon had Mr. Cox fired in the so-called Saturday Night Massacre. Mr. Nixon’s attorney general and deputy attorney general resigned rather than carry out his orders to oust the prosecutor; Mr. Nixon then turned to Mr. Bork, the department’s No. 3, who proved willing to do it. Amid a political backlash, Mr. Nixon was forced to allow a new special counsel, Leon Jaworski , to resume the investigation.)

The question arose again a generation later, when President Bill Clinton faced an investigation by Kenneth Starr, an independent counsel, into the Whitewater land deal that morphed into an inquiry into his affair with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern. Randolph D. Moss , Mr. Clinton’s appointee to lead the Office of Legal Counsel, reviewed the Justice Department’s 1973 opinions and reaffirmed their conclusions .

Legal scholars, as well as staff for prosecutors investigating presidents, have disputed the legitimacy of that constitutional theory. In 1974, Mr. Jaworski received a memo from his staff saying he could, in fact, indict Mr. Nixon while he was in office, and he later made that case in a court brief .

And in a 56-page memo in 1998, Ronald Rotunda, a prominent conservative constitutional scholar whom Mr. Starr hired as a consultant on his legal team, rejected the view that presidents are immune from prosecution while in office. Mr. Starr later said that he had concluded that he could indict Mr. Clinton.

“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,” Mr. Rotunda wrote. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”

Mr. Starr commissioned the Rotunda memo as he was drafting a potential indictment of Mr. Clinton, and Mr. Starr decided that he could charge the president while in office. In the end, however, both Mr. Jaworski and Mr. Starr decided to let congressional impeachment proceedings play out and did not try to bring indictments while Mr. Nixon and Mr. Clinton remained in office.

The question may never be definitively tested in the courts. In 1999, Congress allowed a law that created independent counsels like Mr. Starr — prosecutors who do not report to the attorney general — to expire, and the Justice Department issued regulations to allow for the appointment of semiautonomous special counsels for inquiries into potential high-level wrongdoing in the executive branch.

Special counsels are, however, bound by Justice Departments policies and practices — including the Office of Legal Counsel’s proclamation that sitting presidents are temporarily immune from criminal indictment or trial.

Alan Feuer and Charlie Savage

Is there such a thing as executive immunity?

There are no direct precedents on the broad question of whether presidents have criminal immunity for their official actions.

The Supreme Court has held that presidents are absolutely immune from civil lawsuits related to their official acts , in part to protect them against ceaseless harassment and judicial scrutiny of their day-to-day decisions. The court has also held that presidents can be sued over their personal actions .

The Supreme Court has further found that while presidents are sometimes immune from judicial subpoenas requesting internal executive branch information, that privilege is not absolute. Even presidents, the court has decided, can be forced to obey a subpoena in a criminal case if the need for information is great enough.

But until Mr. Trump wound up in court, the Supreme Court has never had a reason to decide whether former presidents are protected from being prosecuted for official actions. The Justice Department has long maintained that sitting presidents are temporarily immune from prosecution because criminal charges would distract them from their constitutional functions. But since Mr. Trump is not in office, that is not an issue.

The closest the country has come to the prosecution of a former president over official actions came in 1974, when Richard M. Nixon resigned to avoid being impeached over the Watergate scandal. But a pardon by his successor, President Gerald R. Ford, protected Nixon from indictment by the Watergate special prosecutor.

Mr. Smith’s team has argued that Ford’s pardon — and Nixon’s acceptance of it — demonstrates that both men understood that Nixon was not already immune. Mr. Trump’s team has sought to counter that point by arguing — inaccurately — that Nixon faced potential criminal charges only over private actions, like tax fraud. But the special prosecutor weighed charging Nixon with abusing his office to obstruct justice.

Mr. Trump’s team has argued that denying his claims risks unleashing a routine practice of prosecuting former presidents for partisan reasons. But Mr. Smith’s team has argued that if courts endorse Mr. Trump’s theory, then future presidents who are confident of surviving impeachment could, with impunity, commit any number of crimes in connection with their official actions.

“Such a result would severely undermine the compelling public interest in the rule of law and criminal accountability,” prosecutors wrote.

Hypothetical questions test the limits of Trump’s immunity claim.

An exchange during an appeals court argument in January about a hypothetical political assassination tested former President Donald J. Trump’s claim that he is absolutely immune from prosecution for his official conduct.

His lawyer, D. John Sauer, has urged the justices to consider only what he is actually accused of: plotting to subvert the 2020 election. But hypothetical questions are routine at the Supreme Court, and they have a way of illuminating the contours and implications of legal theories.

That is what happened in January, when Judge Florence Y. Pan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had to press Mr. Sauer to get an answer to a hypothetical question: Are former presidents absolutely immune from prosecution, even for murders they ordered while in office?

“I asked you a yes-or-no question,” Judge Pan said. “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”

Mr. Sauer said his answer was a “qualified yes,” by which he meant no. He explained that prosecution would be permitted only if the president were first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.

Impeachments of presidents are rare: There have been four in the history of the Republic, two of them of Mr. Trump. The number of convictions, which require a two-thirds majority of the Senate: zero.

Mr. Sauer’s statement called to mind a 2019 federal appeals court argument over whether Mr. Trump could block state prosecutors from obtaining his tax and business records. He maintained that he was immune not only from prosecution but also from criminal investigation so long as he was president.

At that time, Judge Denny Chin of the Second Circuit pressed William S. Consovoy, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, asking about his client’s famous statement that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without losing political support.

“Local authorities couldn’t investigate?” Judge Chin asked, adding: “Nothing could be done? That’s your position?”

“That is correct,” said Mr. Consovoy. “That is correct.”

This headline followed: “If Trump Shoots Someone on 5th Ave., Does He Have Immunity? His Lawyer Says Yes.”

For his part, Mr. Sauer does not seem eager to revisit the question about assassinations. Indeed, in asking the Supreme Court to hear Mr. Trump’s appeal, Mr. Sauer urged the justices not to be distracted by “lurid hypotheticals” that “almost certainly never will occur.”

What counts as an official act as president?

Another issue that has come up in lower courts in this case was what counted as an official act for a president, as opposed to a private action that was not connected to his constitutional responsibilities.

If the justices want to dispose of the dispute without definitively ruling on whether presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts, they could do so by finding that the specific steps former President Donald J. Trump took to remain in office that are cited in the federal indictment were not official actions. If so, the broader immunity question would not matter, and the prosecution could proceed.

The acts by Mr. Trump cited in the indictment include using deceit to organize fake slates of electors and to try to get state officials to subvert legitimate election results; trying to get the Justice Department and Vice President Mike Pence to help fraudulently alter the results; directing his supporters to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021; and exploiting the violence and chaos of their ensuing riot.

In its court filings, Mr. Trump’s team has sought to reframe those accusations not only as official actions, but innocuous or even admirable ones.

“All five types of conduct alleged in the indictment constitute official acts,” they wrote. “They all reflect President Trump’s efforts and duties, squarely as chief executive of the United States, to advocate for and defend the integrity of the federal election, in accord with his view that it was tainted by fraud and irregularity.”

Mr. Smith’s team has argued that they should be seen as the efforts of a person seeking office, not of an officeholder carrying out government responsibilities.

“Those alleged acts were carried out by and on behalf of the defendant in his capacity as a candidate, and the extensive involvement of private attorneys and campaign staff in procuring the fraudulent slates as alleged in the indictment underscores that those activities were not within the outer perimeter of the office of the presidency,” they wrote.

Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is overseeing Mr. Trump’s case in Federal District Court in Washington, issued her ruling rejecting Mr. Trump’s immunity claim without including any detailed analysis of whether his acts were “official.”

If the Supreme Court were to send the matter back to her to take a stab at answering that question before restarting the appeals process, Mr. Trump will, at a minimum, have used up additional valuable time that could help push any trial past the election.

Noah Weiland and Alan Feuer

Here are the lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court.

The two lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court on Thursday have each played a role in some of the defining legal battles stemming from Mr. Trump’s term in office.

Arguing the case for the special counsel Jack Smith will be Michael Dreeben, who worked for a different special counsel’s office that scrutinized Mr. Trump’s presidency: Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into links between Russia and associates of Mr. Trump. Mr. Dreeben, one of the nation’s leading criminal law experts, has made more than 100 oral arguments before the Supreme Court, including when he served as deputy solicitor general.

On Mr. Mueller’s team, he handled pretrial litigation, defending the scope of the investigation and preventing the office from losing cases on appeal. He also helped with a second part of Mr. Mueller’s investigation, examining whether Mr. Trump had tried to obstruct the inquiry in his dealings with associates involved in the case.

Mr. Dreeben, who was heavily involved in the writing of Mr. Mueller’s final report on his investigation, supported an interpretation of presidential power that emphasized limits on what a president could do while exercising his or her powers, according to “Where Law Ends,” a book written by Andrew Weissmann, another prosecutor on Mr. Mueller’s team.

After Mr. Mueller’s investigation concluded, Mr. Dreeben took a teaching position at Georgetown University’s law school and returned to private practice at O’Melveny, arguing in front of the Supreme Court on behalf of the city of Austin over a First Amendment dispute about the placement of digital billboards.

Opposing Mr. Dreeben in front of the Supreme Court will be D. John Sauer, a lawyer based in St. Louis who once served as the solicitor general of Missouri. Mr. Sauer joined Mr. Trump’s legal team late last year to handle appellate matters, including his challenge to a gag order imposed on him in the election case in Washington.

As Missouri’s solicitor general, Mr. Sauer took part in a last-ditch effort to keep Mr. Trump in power after his defeat in the 2020 election, filing a motion on behalf of his state and five others in support of an attempt by Texas to have the Supreme Court toss out the results of the vote count in several key swing states.

He also joined in an unsuccessful bid with Texas in asking the Supreme Court to stop the Biden administration from rescinding a Trump-era immigration program that forces certain asylum seekers arriving at the southwestern border to await approval in Mexico.

When he left the solicitor general’s office last January, Mr. Sauer, who once clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, returned to his private firm, the James Otis Law Group. The firm is named after a prominent Revolutionary War-era lawyer who built a career out of challenging abuses by British colonial forces.

To justify his defense in the immunity case, Trump turns to a familiar tactic.

When the Supreme Court considers Donald J. Trump’s sweeping claims of executive immunity on Thursday, it will break new legal ground, mulling for the first time the question of whether a former president can avoid being prosecuted for things he did in office.

But in coming up with the argument, Mr. Trump used a tactic on which he has often leaned in his life as a businessman and politician: He flipped the facts on their head in an effort to create a different reality.

At the core of his immunity defense is a claim that seeks to upend the story told by federal prosecutors in an indictment charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 election. In that indictment, prosecutors described a criminal conspiracy by Mr. Trump to subvert the election results and stay in power.

In Mr. Trump’s telling, however, those same events are official acts that he undertook as president to safeguard the integrity of the race and cannot be subject to prosecution.

In many ways, Mr. Trump’s immunity claim is breathtaking. In one instance, his lawyers went so far as to say that a president could not be prosecuted even for using the military to assassinate a rival unless he was first impeached.

But the wholesale rewriting of the government’s accusations — which first appeared six months ago in Mr. Trump’s motion to dismiss the election interference case — may be the most audacious part of his defense. It was certainly a requisite step his lawyers had to take to advance the immunity argument.

Other courts have ruled that presidents enjoy limited immunity from civil lawsuits for things they did as part of the formal responsibilities of their job. To extend that legal concept to criminal charges, Mr. Trump’s lawyers needed to reframe all of the allegations lodged against him in the election interference case as official acts of his presidency rather than as the actions of a candidate misusing his power.

People taken into custody at NYU as pro-Palestinian campus protests escalate across U.S.

Rising tensions on campuses

• Multiple people were taken into custody tonight at New York University, city officials confirmed, adding that officers responded to the campus after university officials requested police. The number was unclear.
• Police officers arrested protesters who had set up an encampment on Yale University ’s campus in support of the Palestinian cause. In total, 47 students were issued summonses, the university said.
• In New York City, classes at Columbia University were held virtually today amid reports of antisemitic and offensive statements and actions on and near its campus.
• Last week more than 100 Columbia students were arrested after the administration called police to report the students as a danger to campus. NYPD Chief of Patrol John Chell told the student newspaper that there were no reports of violence or injuries and that the students were "peaceful, offered no resistance whatsoever."
• Pro-Palestinian encampments have also been established at the University of Michigan, New York University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and California State Polytechnic University, Humboldt.
• The escalated tension comes ahead of this evening's start of the Jewish holiday of Passover.

Coverage on this live blog has ended. Follow the latest news on the campus protests here.

Cal Poly Humboldt in California closes campus after occupation of building

Phil Helsel

California State Polytechnic University, Humboldt, said campus is closed through Wednesday after protesters demonstrating against the war in Gaza occupied Siemens Hall on the campus in Arcata.

“The University is deeply concerned about the safety of the protestors who have barricaded themselves inside the building. The University is urgently asking that the protestors listen to directives from law enforcement that have responded and to peacefully leave the building,” it said in a statement.

It asked the campus community to avoid the area of the building, "as it is a dangerous and volatile situation."

Cal Poly Humboldt has an undergrad enrollment of around 5,800. Humboldt is on the California coast in the northwestern part of the state, near the Oregon border.

MIT students demand school call for cease-fire

The Associated Press

Prahlad Iyengar, an MIT graduate student studying electrical engineering, was among about two dozen students who set up a tent encampment on the school’s Cambridge, Massachusetts, campus Sunday evening. They are calling for a cease-fire and are protesting what they describe as MIT’s “complicity in the ongoing genocide in Gaza,” he said.

“MIT has not even called for a cease-fire, and that’s a demand we have for sure,” Iyengar said.

He also said MIT has been sending out confusing rules about protests.

“We’re out here to demonstrate that we reserve the right to protest. It’s an essential part of living on a college campus,” Iyengar said.

Police 'ready' to remove protesters again at NYU's request: NYPD official

A New York Police Department deputy commissioner tonight shared the letter sent by New York University to the police department asking police to clear Gaza war protesters from its Manhattan campus who refused to leave.

Deputy Commissioner Kaz Daughtry also on social media said that if called upon, the NYPD would do it again.

"There is a pattern of behavior occurring on campuses across our nation, in which individuals attempt to occupy a space in defiance of school policy,” Daughtry wrote on X . “ Rest assured, in NYC the NYPD stands ready to address these prohibited and subsequently illegal actions whenever we are called upon.”

Police took multiple people into custody at NYU’s Gould Plaza while clearing the protesters, the police department said. The number of those arrested, as well as charges, were not available from police early Tuesday.

The letter from NYU posted by Daughtry said the protesters refused to leave and that the university considered them to be trespassers and asked for police help.

Fountain Walker, head of NYU Global Campus Safety, said on social media that the university had given the demonstrators until 4 p.m. to leave. Walker said that barricades had been breached and “we witnessed disorderly, disruptive, and antagonizing behavior that has interfered with the safety and security of our community.”

Columbia to offer hybrid learning for classes on main campus until summer

Classes at Columbia University’s main campus will be hybrid, if the technology permits it, until the end of the spring semester, Provost Angela V. Olinto said in guidance to the Manhattan institution, which has had demonstrations over the war in Gaza.

Faculty with classes equipped with hybrid technology “should enable them to provide virtual learning options to students who need such a learning modality,” she wrote.

Those without should hold classes remotely if students request it, she wrote. The guidance applies to the university’s main campus in Morningside Heights.

There have been large demonstrations over the war in Gaza, and last week over 100 people were arrested there after the university asked the NYPD to remove protesters who occupied a space on campus for more than 30 hours.

Columbia President President Minouche Shafik said in a letter to the university community today that "I am deeply saddened by what is happening on our campus."

"The decibel of our disagreements has only increased in recent days," Shafik said. "These tensions have been exploited and amplified by individuals who are not affiliated with Columbia who have come to campus to pursue their own agendas. We need a reset."

She added that "over the past days, there have been too many examples of intimidating and harassing behavior on our campus" and that antisemitic language will not be tolerated.

Barnard offers suspended students a deal

Barnard College says it has offered the students who were suspended after a 30-hour encampment protest at Columbia last week a way to get off interim suspension.

The students were suspended after police cleared the encampment, set up in support of Gaza, on April 18. New York police arrested more than 100 people.

Barnard President Laura Ann Rosenbury said in a letter today that “the vast majority of the students on interim suspension have not previously engaged in misconduct under Barnard’s rules.”

“Last night, the College sent written notices to these students offering to lift the interim suspensions, and immediately restore their access to College buildings, if they agree to follow all Barnard rules during a probationary period,” Rosenbury said.

If they do, the incident will not appear on transcripts or reportable student disciplinary records, she said.

More than 108 people were arrested during the demonstration, authorities have said.

Students mark Passover with interfaith Seders

Alicia Victoria Lozano

Tavleen Tarrant

BERKELEY, Calif. — Jewish students have organized interfaith Passover Seders at the Gaza solidarity encampments at college campuses across the U.S.

Photos and videos from Columbia University in New York City and the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor were shared online and show students in keffiyeh scarves, surrounded by tents, sitting down to a Passover Seder.

A spokesperson for the Jewish Voice for Peace chapter at the University of California, Berkeley, said the group would also be hosting a Seder.

“A lot of us had other plans for our first-night Seder, but we want to observe Passover with our community,” said a spokesperson for Berkeley’s chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace. “It’s a strange time dealing with the story of Passover.”

N.J. man charged with hate crime in break-in at Rutgers Islamic center

A 24-year-old New Jersey man has been charged with a federal hate crime and accused of breaking into an Islamic center on the campus of Rutgers University this month, federal prosecutors said today.

Jacob Beacher, of Somerset County, is charged with one count of intentional or attempted obstruction of religious practice and one count of making false statements to federal authorities, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey said in a statement .

Beacher is accused of breaking into the Center for Islamic Life at the New Brunswick campus around 2:40 a.m. April 10.

He broke through the glass pane of a rear door to unlock it, an FBI special agent wrote in an affidavit associated with the criminal complaint, and then allegedly damaged religious artifacts and stole a Palestinian flag.

Around $40,000 in damage was done, the affidavit says. When he was questioned, Beacher said he was the person in surveillance video near the center, but he denied breaking into the building, the FBI agent wrote.

A suspected motive is not described in the affidavit. A federal public defender listed in court records as representing Beacher did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Court records show Beacher was being held in custody.

U.S. Holocaust Museum calls on colleges to address ‘shocking eruption of antisemitism’ on campuses

The U.S. Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., today called on colleges to do more to address what it called a “shocking eruption of antisemitism” on campuses due to tensions over the war in Gaza.

“Demonstrators at Columbia University calling for Jews to return to Poland — where three million Jewish men, women, and children were murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators — is an outrageous insult to Holocaust memory, a failure to appreciate its lessons, and an act of dangerous antisemitism,” the Holocaust Museum said in a statement .

“America is hardly the Third Reich, but the Holocaust teaches the dangers of pervasive societal antisemitism, and awareness of this history must guide our actions in the present,” it said. “Nazi ideology was official state policy, but it found a  receptive audience  on university campuses based on well established contempt towards Jews.”

In  a letter shared yesterday on social media , Chabad at Columbia University said students have had offensive rhetoric hurled at them, including being told to “go back to Poland” and “stop killing children.”

Demonstrators taken into custody at NYU

New York police said they took multiple people into custody at New York University tonight after the university called police and requested the removal of demonstrators.

How many people were taken into custody was not immediately clear. Video from the Manhattan campus showed police with helmets and batons and warning people to leave.

NYU said on social media earlier that protesters had until 4 p.m. to leave Gould Plaza after barricades were breached and after “we witnessed disorderly, disruptive, and antagonizing behavior that has interfered with the safety and security of our community.”

Video tonight showed some demonstrators chanting “NYPD KKK” and “shame on you.”

The NYPD arrested more than 100 people last week at a Gaza protest encampment at Columbia University, also in Manhattan. Columbia had also requested police assistance, officials said.

Jewish students march in solidarity

BERKELEY, Calif. — Jewish students at several college campuses are marching in solidarity with demonstrators calling for an end to the war in Gaza and the divestment of universities from Israeli companies.

At the University of California, Berkeley, in the San Francisco Bay Area, members of the local Jews for Peace chapter camped alongside pro-Palestinian protesters on the Mario Savio steps, named after a founding member of the Free Speech Movement.

A spokesperson for the group, which plans an interfaith Passover Seder tonight, said members are there to "protect" the free speech of anti-war demonstrators.

At the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, Jews for Peace members held signs that read "Jews say no to genocide" and "Anti Zionism is not antisemitism."

Columbia student organizers condemn hate; NYPD says arrests will be made 'if there is a crime'

Doha Madani

Michael Gerber, the deputy New York police commissioner for legal matters, told reporters that officers would step in if crimes were committed on or around Columbia University's campus as some Jewish students express fear for their safety.

He said that includes "harassment or threats or menacing or stalking or anything like that that is not protected by the First Amendment."

Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine, one of the student groups organizing the protest, condemned hate and bigotry in a statement yesterday. The statement blamed nonstudents outside the encampment for inciting harmful incidents over the weekend.

"We have been peaceful," the statement said. "We follow in the footsteps of the civil rights and anti-war movements in our quest for liberation."

Barnard faculty member calls for suspensions to be lifted

Barnard University faculty member Jackie Orr was out with protesters today “because of an unfolding genocide in Gaza” and to show support for students and staff members.

Orr said she was there specifically to join calls for Barnard and associated Columbia University cancel the suspensions of students who were suspended last week after they refused to leave an encampment to show support for Gaza.

The Barnard students have been evicted from their dorms, dining halls and classrooms and all of campus, she said.

“We’re here to demand that the universities immediately unsuspend those students — over 50 students at Barnard are without housing, without access to the classrooms and the faculty, without access to food,” Orr said.

Orr said it is the responsibility of faculty members to stand for students and support the speech of all students.

“The only students whose political speech and activism has been surveyed, targeted and punished have been students who have been speaking in solidarity with Palestine and students who have been speaking and acting forcefully against a genocidal war,” she said.

Barnard and Columbia, across the street from each other in Manhattan, have a partnership and students share facilities.

Patriots owner Kraft says he won’t support Columbia until changes made

New England Patriots owner and Columbia University alumnus Robert Kraft said today he will no longer support the university “until corrective action is taken."

In a statement , Kraft, who graduated from Columbia in 1963, said the university “is no longer an institution I recognize.”

“I am deeply saddened at the virulent hate that continues to grow on campus and throughout our country. I am no longer confident that Columbia can protect its students and staff and I am not comfortable supporting the university until corrective action is taken,” he said.

“It is my hope that Columbia and its leadership will stand up to this hate by ending these protests immediately and will work to earn back the respect and trust of the many of us who have lost faith in the institution,” he said.

Pro-Palestinian student group at Harvard says it has been suspended

Dennis Romero

The Harvard Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee said on its social media platforms today that it has been suspended by the institution.

Harvard's public affairs and communications office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The group, also known as Harvard for Palestine, has helped organize protests on campus in solidarity with pro-Palestinian encampments and protests at Columbia University, Yale and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The organization National Students for Justice in Palestine said on X the suspension at Harvard was "intended to prevent students from replicating the solidarity encampments" across the country.

Columbia undergraduate students approve referendums on divestment, ending ties to Tel Aviv

Columbia College, the undergraduate liberal arts school at Columbia University, voted to approve three referendums today calling on the school to divest from Israel as well as cut its ties to Tel Aviv.

According to the student-run Columbia Spectator , the three referendums urged the school to divest funding from Israel, end its dual-degree program with Tel Aviv University and close its Global Center in Tel Aviv. The votes are an indicator of the student's wishes but do not change university policy.

A university spokesperson told the Spectator that the school "welcomes and embraces the Israeli students, faculty, and staff on our campus."

"We are proud of our students and military veterans from Israel and around the world whose experience adds considerable value to the classroom and beyond,” the spokesperson said.

UC Berkeley becomes first West Coast campus to join call for solidarity

BERKELEY, Calif. — Dozens of students gathered on the Savio Steps, named for Mario Savio, the leader of the 1960s Free Speech Movement, at the University of California, Berkeley, today to protest the Israel-Hamas war and the UC system’s investments in companies that do business with Israel.

Protesters said they planned to set up an encampment on campus as UC Berkeley became the first West Coast university to join a call for solidarity among colleges across the country to show their opposition to Israel’s military action in Gaza.

The Savio Steps lead to Sproul Hall, which housed the offices of the chancellor and administrators in the 1960s and were occupied by students from the Free Speech Movement. 

The movement is considered the first mass act of  civil disobedience  on a U.S. campus in the ’60s as students demanded the school lift a ban on on-campus political activity and secure their right to free speech and academic freedom.

‘We’re going to keep demanding for a free Palestine,’ Yale protester says after arrests

The arrests of 47 students at Yale University this morning will not dissuade people from calling for the Ivy League school to disclose its investments and divest from companies linked to war or weapons, a student vowed today.

“This morning, the cops completely ambushed us. It was 6:40 a.m.; most people were still asleep,” Yale protester Chisato Kimura told NBC Connecticut .

Demonstrators had been gathering on Beinecke Plaza on the campus in New Haven all last week, and Kimura said that when their demands of Yale went unanswered, they began taking up space with people and tents on the plaza over the weekend.

“We’re going to keep demanding for a free Palestine,” Kimura said. She said some of the people arrested had already returned to protests by this afternoon.

Kimura said that the protesters want Yale to make it clear that it is not investing in ways connected to weapons or war but that Yale has refused their request for disclosure. “We don’t want to be complicit as students,” she said.

“I don’t know what Yale was thinking when they arrested the students, but if they thought they were going to shut us up or make us quiet — I mean, it completely backfired,” Kimura told NBC Connecticut as a rally was being held.

Yale said in a statement that it repeatedly warned students that continuing to violate university policies could result in action that included arrest and that it tried to negotiate with students to leave the plaza without success. It said that negotiations ended at 11:30 p.m. and that today Yale issued summonses to people who refused to leave voluntarily. 

Yale also said that it "became aware of police reports identifying harmful acts and threatening language used against individuals at or near the protest sites," some by people from Yale and some from outsiders. Several hundred people were at the plaza over the weekend, the university said.

Michigan students establish encampment in heart of campus

Protesters at the University of Michigan renewed their criticism of Israeli warfare today by erecting an encampment in the heart of the Ann Arbor campus, on the Diag, or Diagonal Green.

The protest was organized in part by the group Transparency Accountability Humanity Reparations Investment Resistance, better known as the TAHRIR Coalition.

Earlier in the day students marched along the Diag chanting, "If you don't get no justice, we don't get no peace."

The coalition's main goal is university divestment from companies or funds that support Israel's war in Gaza, home to a population that has faced mass displacement since Hamas militants' Oct. 7 surprise attack on Israel.

The university has addressed the demand previously, with Regent Michael Behm saying in late March: "The endowment has no direct investment in any Israeli company. What we do have are funds that one of those companies may be part of a fund. Less than 1/10 of 1% of the endowment is invested indirectly in such companies."

University of Michigan police did not immediately respond to a request for information about its response to today's actions on campus.

Biden condemns antisemitic protests, 'those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians'

Alexandra Bacallao

Zoë Richards

Reporters asked Biden in Triangle, Virginia, this afternoon for his message to protestors and whether he condemned antisemitic demonstrations on college campuses.

“I condemn the antisemitic protests; that’s why I’ve set up a program to deal with that," Biden told reporters.

“I also condemn those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians,” he added.

The comment appeared to be a reference to an effort announced last year to initiate partnerships between the departments of Justice and Homeland Security   and campus law enforcement agencies to track hate-related threats and supply schools with federal resources to combat a rise in antisemitism.

Rep. Ilhan Omar praises solidarity movement on campuses

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., praised the solidarity emerging as campuses across the country protest the Israel-Hamas war after faculty at Columbia University staged a walkout over the administration’s crackdown.

“On Thursday, Columbia arrested and suspended its students who were peacefully protesting and have now ignited a nationwide Gaza Solidarity movement,” Omar wrote on X. “This is more than the students hoped for and I am glad to see this type of solidarity.”

Omar’s daughter, Isra Hirsi, was arrested participating in the protests and suspended from Columbia’s nearby sister school, Barnard College. Omar said she was “enormously proud” of her daughter.

Hirsi  told MSNBC  she believed the school targeted for suspension students who were speaking to the media. She denied the protest encampment on campus was threatening, describing it as a “beautiful” community and saying students held Shabbat during that time.

Columbia courses go virtual as protests continue; faculty stage walkout in support

Students at Columbia University are on their sixth day of camping out on the school's South Lawn, a re-creation of an anti-war demonstration students held in 1968 opposing U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

Columbia President Nemat “Minouche” Shafik said today that classes would be held virtually and that school leaders would be coming together to discuss a way to bring an end to “this crisis.” The original 1968 protests lasted roughly a week before police forcibly removed students in full-scale police riots , alumnus Oren Root described in an opinion essay.

A large group of faculty members staged a walkout today in support of students. Students were arrested last week when the school administration asked police to remove students, citing a threat to safety, though NYPD Chief of Patrol John Chell told the Columbia Spectator that the protestors were peaceful and "offered no resistance whatsoever."

The Columbia encampment has inspired similar demonstrations at other campuses, including New York University, Yale University and the University of California, Berkeley. Protesters have also gathered outside the gate to Columbia University, where antisemitic incidents and aggressive crowds have been reported.

Pro-Palestinian supporters arrested at encampment on Yale plaza

Marlene Lenthang

Police officers   today arrested protesters who had set up an encampment on Yale University’s campus   in support of the Palestinian cause,   one of a  growing number of American universities  where there have been demonstrations surrounding the Israel-Hamas war.

Protesters had been on their third night of camping out to urge Yale to divest from military weapons manufacturers, the  Yale Daily News  reported.

Officers gathered at the protest site at Beinecke Plaza shortly before 7 a.m. Monday   and were   seen approaching the encampment and “flipping up the entrances to the tents,” the school paper wrote on X.

Then officers issued a warning for students and journalists to leave or they’d be arrested. Minutes later, the school paper wrote on X that police were arresting people.

In total, 47 students were issued summonses, Yale said in a  statement  today.  

Read the full story here.

A high-energy crowd at NYU

People gathered in front of New York University's Stern School of Business to protest on Gould Plaza this afternoon. The crowd maintained high energy while chanting “free Palestine." The group also held a communal prayer and observed a moment of silence for those who have died in Gaza.

New York police were on the scene.

A few people gathered across the street, with at least one person holding an Israeli flag.

Karely Perez, an NYU alumna, said she joined the protest to show her support for the student organizations behind the encampment.

“Once the students start getting mad, things start to change,” she said.

Perez said she was proud of the students and added that although the encampments on university campuses are new, pro-Palestinian activism has always existed at schools like NYU.

• Asia Pacific
• Middle East
• United Kingdom
• United States
• The Great Reboot
• Reuters Next
• Aerospace & Defense
• Autos & Transportation
• Environment
• Healthcare & Pharmaceuticals
• Media & Telecom
• Retail & Consumer
• Sustainable Business
• Future of Health
• Future of Money
• Reuters Impact
• Legal Industry
• Transactional
• Asian Markets
• Carbon Markets
• Commodities
• Emerging Markets
• European Markets
• Global Market Data
• Rates & Bonds
• U.S. Markets
• Macro Matters
• Reuters Momentum
• Motor Sports
• Oddly Enough

Donald Trump’s rally speech in Wisconsin examined

By CHRISTINA ANAGNOSTOPOULOS , SOFIA PAREDES and SEANA DAVIS

Filed April 20, 2024, 10 a.m. GMT

Reuters examined 11 statements made by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at his rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin, on April 2. While Reuters monitored the 58-minute speech in its entirety, the news agency did not examine opinions, rhetorical or direct questions, anonymous sourcing and information that could not be independently verified.

The statements are listed in chronological order with the timestamps in Central Daylight Time (CDT).

CLAIM  17:09 CDT

Trump says he won Wisconsin by “a lot,” referring to the 2020 presidential election

WHAT WE KNOW

This is false. Joe Biden won the state of Wisconsin in the 2020 presidential election with 49.4% of the vote over Trump’s 48.8%.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to take up a case by Trump challenging the election results.

CLAIM  17:11 CDT

Trump says Biden declared Easter Sunday to be Transgender Visibility Day

This is misleading. Biden made public remarks about Transgender Day of Visibility, but he did not say Easter Sunday would become Trans Visibility Day.

Transgender Day of Visibility has been celebrated on March 31 for 14 years, according to the LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD . It happened to be the same day as Easter Sunday in 2024. Read more.

CLAIM  17:12 CDT

While talking about crime during the Biden administration, Trump says crime in Venezuela is down by 67%

The source of the 67% figure is unclear. A Trump spokesperson did not respond to a Reuters request for the data supporting the figure.

According to the Venezuelan Violence Observatory , a Caracas-based research organization, violent deaths declined 25% last year from 2022.

CLAIM  17:18 CDT (again at 17:37-17:39 and 17:45 CDT)

Trump repeats his false claim that the 2020 election was stolen or illegitimate

This is false. State governments, courts and members of Trump’s administration have repeatedly rejected the former president’s claims that the 2020 election was stolen .

Federal and state judges have dismissed more than 50 lawsuits alleging election fraud or other irregularities related to the 2020 presidential election brought by Trump or his allies. Read more .

CLAIM  17:19 CDT

Trump quotes Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban as saying, “The only way you’re going to clean up this world is if Trump becomes president again”

This is in line with past statements Hungary’s nationalist prime minister has made about Trump. Orban said in a meeting with the former president in Florida last month that only Trump could bring peace to Ukraine’s conflict with Russia.

“We need leaders in the world who are respected and can bring peace. He is one of them! Come back and bring us peace, Mr. President!,” Orban said in a post on X after that meeting.

CLAIM  17:26 CDT

Trump says he built 571 miles of border wall. He did not specify which land border but since 2016 he has campaigned for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

This is not accurate. The Trump administration completed around 458 miles of barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border, according to January 2021 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data.

The majority were barriers that were built during previous administrations and replaced during Trump’s tenure. In areas where no structures existed prior to Trump taking office in January 2017, his administration constructed a total of 52 miles of primary wall.

A January 2021 CBP report obtained by Factcheck.org shows 33 miles of new secondary wall were built during Trump’s tenure.

CLAIM  17:27 CDT

Trump says illegal immigration into the U.S. fell to its lowest point “in history” during his presidency

This is mostly true, based on available government data.

During Trump’s administration, the number of apprehensions by the U.S. Border Patrol at the southwest border (an indicator of attempts of illegal border crossings) for a single month fell to their lowest point on record in April 2017, according to monthly CBP data that goes back to fiscal year 2000 .

CBP has yearly data for nationwide apprehensions by all land, air and sea routes since fiscal year 1925.

Going by these figures, Trump’s aren’t the lowest on record but they are the lowest in over four decades. In fiscal year 1971, during Richard Nixon’s administration, total apprehensions dipped to 302,517, which is below Trump’s lowest tally of 310,531 in fiscal year 2017.

CLAIM  17:30 CDT

Trump says wages rose during his presidency without any inflation

Nationwide wages rose 3.1% during Trump’s presidency, based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employment Cost Index inflation-adjusted constant dollar estimates.

Inflation was not at zero, but it was lower than during the Biden administration.

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) during the Trump administration varied from a high of 2.9% in July 2018 to a low of 0.2% in May 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic’s first wave.

It is true that inflation significantly increased during Biden’s tenure; it stood at 1.4% when he took office and rose to 9% in June 2022, following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine.

Inflation rates have remained below 3.6% since October 2023.

CLAIM  17:34 CDT

The U.S. has more oil and gas than any country in the world

Venezuela has the largest proven crude oil reserves as of 2023, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) while Russia has the largest natural gas reserves, per the International Energy Agency.

As for recoverable oil resources, the expected amounts in existing fields, Saudi Arabia leads the way followed by the U.S. and Russia, according to a 2023 report by oil analysts Rystad Energy.

In terms of production, the U.S. became the world’s largest crude oil producer in 2018 during Trump’s presidency and has remained the top producer since.

The U.S. is also the top producer of natural gas. Since 2017, U.S. natural gas exports have exceeded imports. The latest rankings available (2022) from the EIA show the U.S. produces more energy from petroleum and other liquids than any other country.

The U.S. oil and gas industry has also boomed under Biden’s presidency by almost all metrics, even if he has pushed to transition the economy toward a greener future, hitting record levels of crude oil production in 2023. Read more.

CLAIM  17:36-17:37 CDT

Talking about immigration, Trump says that under the Biden administration, the U.S. has taken in “at least 15 million people”

It’s not clear what Trump meant by the U.S. having “taken in” 15 million people. While it is true that the number of encounters reported by the CBP at the U.S.-Mexico border reached record levels during the Biden administration, it isn’t 15 million.

CBP data compiled between January 2021 and February 2024 show 7,522,711 encounters at the southwest land border.

In terms of nationwide encounters , CBP registered 9,139,037 encounters between January 2021 and February 2024.

Encounter figures include data for Title 8 apprehensions and inadmissibles . This policy grants some migrants the chance to seek asylum in the U.S. or be processed for deportation.

Between March 2020 and May 2023, encounters also included expulsions under the now-expired Title 42 , a COVID-era restriction that allowed border agents to quickly expel migrants without allowing them to seek asylum.

CLAIM  17:50-17:51 CDT

Trump says he was the first president in decades who started no new wars

Defining wars can be difficult. If we consider the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the war in Afghanistan and the Iraq War, Trump joins former presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy and Dwight D. Eisenhower in not having officially brought the U.S. into a new war since 1945.

Trump’s tenure, however, did involve military hostilities overseas and the threat of new ones. The Pentagon said Trump ordered a 2020 drone strike in Iraq that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani , triggering Iranian retaliation that threatened to spiral into open conflict, but did not.

The United States in 2017 launched a missile attack on a Syrian army airbase, marking an escalation of the U.S. military’s role in Syria.

Trump threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea in 2017 but eventually de-escalated tension with Pyongyang.

A Trump spokesperson did not respond to several requests for comment about the statements examined.

This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work.

By Christina Anagnostopoulos, Sofia Paredes and Seana Davis

Photo editing: Corinne Perkins

Art direction: John Emerson

Edited by Stephanie Burnett, Suzanne Goldenberg and Christine Soares

• Follow Reuters Investigates

Other Reuters investigations