square with

match or agree with a rule, fact, or idea

C2

What does "square with sth" mean?

To say that something 'squares with' a principle, law, or body of evidence is to say that it is logically or legally consistent with it — that the two things fit together without contradiction. The phrasal verb is most at home in analytical and argumentative contexts: a court judgment testing whether a decision squares with constitutional rights, a journalist asking whether official statements square with the data, or an academic examining whether a policy squares with established ethical principles. Crucially, it is most often used in negative or interrogative form, because its primary function is to expose contradiction or inconsistency rather than confirm agreement. The subject is nearly always a claim, action, policy, or statement, and what follows 'with' is typically something abstract — a law, a set of values, a body of evidence, or a principle. Unlike 'match' or 'fit', 'square with' carries a strong implication of objective, logical or legal compatibility, making it a distinctly precise and formal tool for argumentation.

Examples

How to use it

subject (claim/action/policy) + square with + abstract principle/evidence

This is the core pattern: a thing — typically a claim, action, or policy — is tested for consistency against a principle, law, or body of evidence.

The government's decision does not square with its obligations under international law.

it + be + hard/difficult + to see how + subject + square with + object

This common framing introduces an element of scepticism or challenge, often used in journalism and academic writing to flag an apparent contradiction.

It is hard to see how the proposed cuts square with the administration's stated commitment to public health.

how + auxiliary + subject + square with + object (interrogative)

Direct questions with 'how' are frequent, often used rhetorically to highlight inconsistency between a claim and an established fact or principle.

How does the committee's ruling square with the precedent set in last year's case?

cannot/could not + square with + object

Modal constructions with 'cannot' or 'could not' sharpen the assertion of incompatibility, implying that no reasonable interpretation could resolve the contradiction.

The leaked documents reveal conduct that simply cannot square with the principles of judicial independence.

subject + square with + object (affirmative)

Affirmative use, while less frequent, is entirely natural when confirming that something is genuinely consistent with a principle or body of evidence.

The tribunal concluded that the revised guidelines square with the requirements of the treaty.

Common Collocations

square with the evidencesquare with the lawsquare with the factssquare with human rightssquare with realitysquare with one's conscience

Common Mistakes

Confusing the two senses of 'square with'

When 'square with' takes a person as its object and is used separably — as in 'I'll square it with the director' — it means to sort something out or get approval from someone. This is an entirely different sense. In the consistency/compatibility sense, the object of 'with' is always an abstract concept such as a law, principle, or body of evidence, never a person.

✗ The committee's findings do not square with the chief investigator.
✓ The committee's findings do not square with the conclusions reached by the chief investigator.
Using continuous tenses

Because 'square with' in this sense describes a logical or legal state of compatibility rather than an ongoing action, continuous forms such as 'is squaring with' or 'was squaring with' are unnatural and should be avoided. Use the simple present, simple past, or present perfect instead.

✗ Analysts are questioning whether the policy is squaring with constitutional norms.
✓ Analysts are questioning whether the policy squares with constitutional norms.
Attempting to use the passive

The passive is grammatically possible in theory but extremely rare and unnatural with this phrasal verb. The structure works best with an active subject — the claim, action, or policy — that is tested against something. Rewrite passive constructions in the active voice.

✗ The constitutional principles were not squared with by the new legislation.
✓ The new legislation does not square with constitutional principles.

Usage

This phrasal verb is formal and more common in written English, particularly in legal, political, and journalistic contexts. It is almost always used in negative or question forms to highlight a contradiction.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is 'square with' only used in formal contexts, or can I use it in everyday conversation?

It is primarily a formal expression, most at home in legal, political, journalistic, and academic discourse. You might occasionally hear it in serious spoken debate or commentary, but it would sound out of place in casual conversation. In informal contexts, 'match up with', 'fit with', or simply 'make sense given' would feel more natural.

Why does 'square with' almost always appear in negative sentences or questions?

The phrasal verb is most often used precisely when two things do not fit together — to expose a contradiction between a claim and the evidence, or a policy and the law. Saying something 'squares with' established principles in the affirmative is less rhetorically useful, because writers and speakers tend to invoke this verb when challenging inconsistency. Affirmative use is perfectly correct, but the negative and interrogative forms dominate in practice.

Does 'square with' have to take an abstract object, or can it be used with concrete things?

In this sense, the object of 'with' is almost always abstract — a principle, a law, a set of values, a body of evidence, or an established position. While a sentence like 'this doesn't square with the report' is possible, 'the report' here functions as a body of evidence rather than a physical object. You would not use 'square with' to talk about physical compatibility or resemblance.

Can the subject of 'square with' be a person?

No — in this sense, the subject should be a thing: a claim, action, policy, decision, statement, or behaviour. If a person appears as the subject, the sentence shifts toward the other sense of 'square with', which means to sort something out or reach an agreement with someone. Keep the subject impersonal to preserve the consistency/compatibility meaning.

Is 'square with' British English, or is it used in American English too?

It is used in both British and American English, particularly in formal written contexts such as legal judgments, parliamentary debate, policy analysis, and editorial writing. There is no significant regional restriction on this sense of the phrasal verb.

Ready to practise?

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

Start Practising →