hold against

keep blaming someone for something they did in the past

B2

What does "hold sth against sb" mean?

To hold something against someone means to continue blaming them for something they did in the past, and to let that affect how you feel about or treat them. The key idea is persistence — the blame doesn't fade; it stays with you and influences your relationship or judgement. For example, if a friend let you down years ago and you still treat them differently because of it, you are holding it against them. The phrase captures both the emotional weight of resentment and the way past actions can shape present attitudes. It is most naturally used in negative or conditional sentences, such as 'I don't hold it against you' or 'I wouldn't hold that against her', which reflects how often people use it to signal forgiveness or reassurance rather than active blame.

Examples

How to use it

hold + [thing blamed] + against + [person]

This is the core structure: the action or mistake being blamed goes between 'hold' and 'against', and the person being blamed follows 'against'.

He lost the contract, but the company didn't hold the mistake against him.

hold it/that + against + [person]

Pronouns like 'it' or 'that' are the most common way to refer to the thing being blamed in natural speech — this short form is preferred in conversation.

She apologised for what she said. I told her I didn't hold it against her.

don't/won't/wouldn't + hold + [thing blamed] + against + [person]

Negative and conditional forms are by far the most common — they are used to express forgiveness, reassurance, or fairness.

I know you had no choice, so I won't hold it against you.

can't + hold + [thing blamed] + against + [person]

Using 'can't' suggests that the blame would be unreasonable or unfair given the circumstances.

She was only twenty at the time — you really can't hold those choices against her now.

hold + [person's background/past/history] + against + [person]

The thing being 'held' can be a broader fact about someone — such as their background, past, or age — not just a specific incident.

The interviewer seemed to hold his lack of a degree against him, which felt unfair.

Common Collocations

hold it against someonehold the past against someonehold a mistake against someonehold someone's decision against themhold that against someonehold someone's background against them

Common Mistakes

Missing object between 'hold' and 'against'

You must always include what is being blamed between 'hold' and 'against'. Leaving it out produces an ungrammatical sentence — use 'it', 'that', or a short noun phrase in this position.

✗ I don't hold against her for what happened.
✓ I don't hold it against her for what happened.
Confusing 'hold against' with 'blame for'

'Blame for' assigns responsibility for a single event, while 'hold against' implies that the blame or resentment continues over time and affects how you treat the person. They are close in meaning but not always interchangeable.

✗ I don't blame that against him — it was years ago.
✓ I don't hold that against him — it was years ago.
Using continuous tenses

'Hold against' in this sense describes an ongoing attitude or state, not an action in progress, so continuous tenses sound unnatural. Use simple present, past, or conditional forms instead.

✗ I am holding it against her because of what she did.
✓ I hold it against her because of what she did.

Usage

This phrasal verb is most natural in negative or conditional sentences ('I don't hold it against you', 'I wouldn't hold it against him'). It is neutral in register and works in both spoken and informal written English.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does 'hold against' always mean blaming someone? I've heard it used differently.

There is also a physical sense of 'hold against', meaning to press something against a surface or person (e.g. 'he held the phone against his ear'). In the blame sense, the thing being 'held' is always an abstract action, mistake, or fact — not a physical object — and a person must follow 'against'. These two uses are easy to tell apart in context.

Is 'hold against' more common in negative sentences? It seems like I always hear it with 'don't' or 'wouldn't'.

Yes, that's a very accurate observation. Negative and conditional forms like 'I don't hold it against you' or 'I wouldn't hold that against her' are by far the most common in natural speech. Affirmative statements like 'I hold it against him' are grammatically correct but carry a noticeably cold or resentful tone and are used much less often.

Can I use 'hold against' in the passive, like 'it was held against him'?

It is grammatically possible but sounds very awkward and is rarely used in natural English. The active voice — 'they held it against him' — is strongly preferred, especially in spoken or informal written contexts.

What kinds of things can be 'held against' someone?

Typically abstract things: a mistake, a lie, a past decision, a comment, someone's background, or their history. The thing being held against someone is usually something they did, said, or cannot change about themselves. It is not used with physical objects in this sense.

Can I use 'hold against' to talk about something that happened very recently, or is it only for the distant past?

The emphasis is on the *persistence* of the blame rather than how long ago the event happened. You can use it even for something recent, as long as the idea is that the resentment is continuing. For example, 'She said something rude this morning and I'm still holding it against her' would be perfectly natural.

Ready to practise?

Practise 1,000+ English phrasal verbs with interactive gap-fill exercises.

Start Practising →