President Donald Trump made history on March 1, 2025, by signing an executive order designATING English as the official language of the United States. This unprecedented move, framed as a means to unify the nation, aims to speed up communication and reinforce shared values among citizens. The order also asserts the idea of fostering societal cohesion through language, stating, "A nationally designated language is at the core of a unified and cohesive society." Trump emphasized the practicality of the decision, noting its intention to create "a more cohesive and efficient society" for all Americans.
While the executive order is notable, experts and educators have raised concerns about its effects on the existing educational framework for English learners. Current federal regulations still require K-12 institutions to support English acquisition for students who are not fluent. Despite the new official language designation, the Daily News reports educators do not foresee immediate changes to English-learner programs. Instead, they caution this could serve as both challenge and opportunity for multilingual education.
Some experts worry the shift might lead to restrictions on translation and interpretation services, which are pivotal for non-English speaking students and their families. Conor Williams, senior fellow at the Century Foundation, said: "There’s no legal reason for any program to change their approach to teaching bilingual education or dual-language programs. But it might still happen." The changes raise the question of whether educational environments will transition toward more English-only instruction or continue to embrace research-backed multilingual approaches, such as dual-language immersion programs.
One significant aspect of Trump's executive order is its revocation of guidance set during the Clinton administration, concerning translation and interpretation services for federally funded programs. Experts, such as those from TESOL, the Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages international association, have expressed worry. They stated: "This order creates barriers to full and equal participation for millions of multilingual learners of English living in the United States." The organization argues these changes do not offer unity or empower English learners.
The American educational system has long provided English language acquisition support based on legal precedents. For example, the 1974 Supreme Court ruling in Lau v. Nichols mandates schools to assist students who are not fluent in English, ensuring equal access to education. Kathleen Leos, former director within the federal office of English language acquisition, indicated the significance of this ruling, explaining, "The driving force for states with language learners is Lau, no matter the structure of the Department of Education or even any mandates like this new executive order."
Even with the establishment of English as the official language, long-standing legal requirements remain unchanged. The 1981 Castañeda v. Pickard federal court decision established metrics to evaluate the adequacy of English-learner programs and pushed schools to utilize effective instructional methods. Experts believe this information opens doors for educational leaders to reflect on their approach toward English-language instruction.
Nevertheless, Leos observes the potential for certain states to adopt English-only instruction to comply with the executive order. Conversely, it may serve as an opportunity for investment in multilingual education, which aligns with current research showcasing the benefits of bilingualism for academic success.
The opportunity for dual-language immersion programs is still available, with all 50 states currently offering high school students the chance to earn seals of biliteracy on their diplomas. Williams highlighted this growing bipartisan support passed through many states, including conservative ones like Texas and Utah, where financial investment for such models has increased.
Montserrat Garibay, the former director of the Education Department’s office of English language acquisition under President Joe Biden, supported this view by recognizing the importance of parental engagement. She expressed concern, stating, "Part of [engaging parents] is emphasizing information is shared in their native language because they will make decisions based on their comprehension."
With the federal directive now active, schools may face numerous adjustments to English-learner programs, particularly affecting translation services. For some activists, this scenario is alarming, as any gaps within these services could impede access to valuable resources, adversely affecting students’ educational experiences.
Julie Sugarman, associate director for K-12 research at the Migration Policy Institute, raised alarms about the risks associated with the new guidance. She pointed out the possibility of the Education Department's office for civil rights de-prioritizing investigations related to inadequate translation or interpretation services and reducing the urgency of schools providing these necessary supports.
Barring unforeseen government changes, many education leaders affirm now is the time to review their approaches to teaching English through multilingual programs. Recognizing the growing trend toward integrating both English and students' home languages within instruction is imperative.
Garibay remarked on the need for continued research investing under the new administration. She asserted, "We need to reinforce the importance of effective research-backed programs to meet the diverse needs of our multilingual student population." The recent executive order has raised numerous questions about the future of language instruction, equity, and access within the American education system.