A recent technical glitch on the Library of Congress website temporarily removed significant portions of the United States Constitution. The affected material included part of Article I, Section 8, and the entire Sections 9 and 10. These segments outline key congressional powers and limitations, as well as constitutional restrictions on both federal and state governments.
The disappearance, noticed on 6 August 2025, drew immediate concern across digital platforms and political circles. Observers pointed out that the missing text included protections like the writ of habeas corpus and prohibitions on titles of nobility. These omissions were first identified by vigilant users on Reddit and later verified through archived versions of the site.
The Library of Congress responded quickly, stating that the issue stemmed from a coding error. According to an official statement, the matter was resolved within hours, and full text restoration occurred by approximately 2 p.m. Eastern Time. A visible banner was added to the site notifying users of recent data issues and offering an apology for any resulting confusion.
Despite the correction, the incident fueled suspicion. Section 9 of Article I includes safeguards that some officials in the Trump admin reportedly considered suspending. Stephen Miller, a senior Trump advisor, had previously floated the idea of removing habeas corpus protections, raising concerns about the potential implications of the temporary omission.
Further skepticism was fueled by recent changes in the Library of Congress leadership. In May 2025, former Librarian Carla Hayden was dismissed and replaced by Todd Blanche, a former attorney for Trump. The controversial appointment was made against the recommendation of staff who favored veteran administrator Robert Newlen for the leadership position.
Online commentators reacted with both alarm and irony. Some noted the troubling nature of an official government platform omitting foundational constitutional clauses. Others emphasized that while digital archives are not legal documents, they serve as primary public resources and must maintain rigorous standards of integrity, especially during periods of political tension.
Although the Library of Congress has clarified that the incident was purely technical, experts have underscored the need for stronger safeguards. Legal scholars and civic watchdogs argue for enhanced version control, auditing protocols, and digital redundancy to ensure accurate, uninterrupted public access to essential national documents such as the Constitution.
The Constitution Annotated site of the Library of Congress is a main source for legal interpretation and educational reference. The brief absence of essential clauses has prompted fresh debate on the responsibilities of digital governance and the vulnerabilities of online public legal infrastructure. Other federal websites, like the National Archives, were unaffected.
Note that the Library has since reiterated its commitment to transparency and accuracy. Officials have pledged to conduct a thorough review of the systems involved and implement necessary safeguards. Whether the incident was indeed a harmless error or a symptom of broader institutional risk remains a matter of ongoing public and professional interest.