In most reported speech, the verb shifts one step back in time: is becomes was, will becomes would, have seen becomes had seen. But this rule has three clear exceptions where the shift is unnecessary — and sometimes even awkward.
The three cases below all share the same logic: if the original statement is still anchored to the present, there is nothing to shift away from.
When the reporting verb is present or future
Backshift happens because the reporting verb is in the past and pulls everything else with it. Remove that pull, and the tense stays put.
If the reporting verb is says, tells, is saying, will say, or any other present or future form, keep the original tense exactly as it was.
This pattern is common in news headlines and journalism, where the present reporting verb keeps the news feeling immediate.
When the statement is still true
If what the speaker originally said remains true at the moment of reporting, both the backshifted and the non-backshifted versions are acceptable. The choice becomes a matter of emphasis.
Non-backshift keeps the fact current and obvious. Backshift is more neutral and slightly more formal.
Both are correct. The first frames the fact as ongoing reality; the second simply reports what was said.
For universal truths — scientific facts, geography, mathematical statements — the present tense is the natural choice.
For facts that are true right now but could change, either form works.
The first suggests the brother still works there. The second is neutral — the listener cannot tell whether the situation has changed.
When the statement is still current
If a statement was made very recently and its content still applies, backshift often feels unnecessarily distant. This shows up most clearly in quick conversational exchanges about near-future or ongoing events.
Backshifting to was coming would be grammatically fine but makes Sarah's plan sound less certain, as though it might have changed. Since the arrival is still in the future, the present tense matches the reality.
The same logic applies to promises, schedules, and arrangements that have not yet expired.
Compare this with a statement whose moment has clearly passed — there, backshift becomes natural again.
Formal versus informal
Even when backshift is optional, register influences the choice.
Formal writing — academic papers, reports, legal documents, journalism — tends to apply backshift consistently. It sounds measured and keeps the reported statement clearly separated from the author's own voice.
Informal speech and writing — conversations, messages, emails between colleagues — often drops backshift when the content is still relevant. It sounds more natural and immediate.
Neither is wrong. The register simply pulls in different directions.
A practical rule
When you are unsure whether to backshift, backshift. It is almost never wrong, and it works in every register from casual to formal. Non-backshift is a stylistic option, not a requirement — skip it only when you are confident the original statement is still true or still current.
Common mistakes
Backshifting after a present reporting verb
Backshifting a universal truth unnecessarily
Confusing still-true with was-already-true
Forcing non-backshift when the moment has passed
Mixing forms within the same report