Library of Congress Blames “Coding Error” for Missing Constitution Sections, But Was It Really Just a Glitch?

A screenshot of the Constitution Annotated website during the reported outage, when key sections including habeas corpus were missing from public view.

Earlier this week, sharp-eyed users noticed something strange on the Library of Congress’s Constitution Annotated website. Entire sections of the U.S. Constitution had quietly disappeared. Among the missing were provisions such as habeas corpus, the foreign emoluments clause, and limits on both federal and state powers.

By midafternoon, those sections had returned. The official explanation given was a simple “coding error.” The question that remains is whether it truly was.

What Actually Happened

Archived versions of the website, preserved by the Wayback Machine, confirm that a large portion of Article I Section 8 was abruptly cut off. In addition, Sections 9 and 10 were completely absent. These are not obscure footnotes or minor amendments. They are core elements of the Constitution that protect against government overreach, unlawful imprisonment, and state-level abuses of power.

A banner appeared on the site stating,

“The Constitution Annotated website is currently experiencing data issues. We are working to resolve this issue and regret the inconvenience.”

By approximately 2 p.m. Eastern Time, the missing text had been restored.

How the Media Chose to Frame It

News outlets quickly covered the incident, although most focused only on the most politically loaded sections that were missing. Coverage leaned heavily into the disappearance of the habeas corpus clause and the foreign emoluments clause, connecting the incident to current immigration enforcement policies and foreign business dealings involving elected officials.

This narrow focus left out several other critical omissions. Entire clauses related to military appropriations, duties on exports, and restrictions on states making treaties were also gone during the incident. These sections did not receive the same attention, even though they are vital to the checks and balances within the Constitution.

Framing the event around only a few high-profile topics helped shape a narrative that fit neatly into existing political discourse, while quietly bypassing a broader and more serious issue.

Looking Closer at the “Coding Error”

The Library of Congress called it a coding error. On the surface, that sounds harmless enough. However, anyone with experience in web development knows that errors which remove full, contiguous sections of structured content without affecting surrounding areas are rare. Such errors do not usually happen in isolation or with that level of precision.

If this was truly a formatting issue, it is worth asking why it impacted only the clauses that are currently central to major political and legal debates. Errors like broken links or content overflow typically produce more scattered or superficial effects, rather than neatly trimming whole legal provisions from a document.

There is no public evidence of foul play, although dismissing the issue as nothing more than a minor glitch avoids a much-needed conversation about digital control and transparency.

Why This Matters More Than It Seems

Regardless of whether the omission was intentional, the real concern lies in the fragility of digital record-keeping. The more we rely on online access to our foundational documents, the more vulnerable we become to subtle changes, accidental or otherwise.

In the past, a missing clause in a printed document would have been noticed immediately. In the digital age, sections can be deleted, altered, or hidden for days before anyone even realizes something is missing. This shift makes it easier to control perception by controlling information, which should raise alarm for anyone who values democratic principles.

Today, the sections were restored. The concern is whether next time they will be noticed at all.

My Final Thought: Who Controls the Delete Key?

The Constitution is supposed to be permanent, yet this incident proved how easily even the most sacred documents can be altered, whether due to error or intent. Labeling the disappearance of key sections as a technical hiccup may be convenient, but it is not sufficient.

This was not just a glitch. It was a reminder.

Truth lives online now, which means someone always has the ability to change it. The real issue is not just what was missing this time. The question we should be asking is:

What else might go missing next?