On March 1, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that officially designates English as the language of the United States, stirring significant debate and concern among various sectors of society. The new order reverses a previous directive established during the Clinton Administration that mandated federal agencies to provide services to people with limited English proficiency (LEP).
In justifying this decision, Trump emphasized that English has been the dominant language since the nation’s inception. In his executive order, he stated, "A nationally designated language is at the core of a unified and cohesive society. The United States is strengthened by a citizenry that can freely exchange ideas in one shared language." This sentiment was echoed in his assertion that welcoming new Americans should involve encouraging the acquisition of the national language to facilitate community engagement and economic opportunities.
However, this decision has raised alarms within immigrant communities and advocacy groups. Marita Etcubanez, director of Strategic Initiatives at Asian Americans Advancing Justice|AAJC, articulated the prevailing sentiment when she remarked, "Immigrant communities are already under attack. This executive order is doubling down on the message that we don’t belong here, and that we are not Americans." She further noted that many immigrants have contributed to the economy and society as taxpayers, implying they deserve access to services without language barriers.
Critics argue that this executive order risks eroding essential language services and may dissuade immigrant populations from seeking important resources. Etcubanez expressed concern that the rescinded guidance leaves federal agencies to determine their language access policies independently, with little obligation to maintain support for LEP individuals.
As a response to the executive order, six US professional translation and interpreting associations have united to issue a Joint Statement opposing Trump’s decision. This coalition, which represents nearly 28,000 professionals, includes the American Translators Association (ATA) and the American Association of Interpreters and Translators in Education (AAITE), among others. Their statement highlighted that revoking Executive Order 13166, which had provided guidelines for language access since 2000, jeopardizes the ability of LEP individuals to access critical services. They emphasized the vital role language services play across healthcare, legal, educational, and economic domains.
The associations stated that the lack of access to adequate translation services could have dire consequences, such as delayed medical diagnoses or wrongful accusations due to poor interpretation. They underscored that LEP individuals contribute significantly to the nation’s economy—serving as essential workers, entrepreneurs, and community members—making the case for why language access should be viewed as a fundamental right, not a liability.
The group urged the Trump administration to reconsider the implications of the new executive order and reinstate the protections established under Executive Order 13166. They called for a reaffirmation of language access protections to uphold equity and support diversity in the United States.
Some advocates worry that the statement from the administration, coupled with the order, might embolden state and local governments to implement restrictive language policies. Given that 36 states already have English as their sole language, the fear of a domino effect leading to reduced language support programs is not unfounded. Furthermore, Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act mandates jurisdictions with significant numbers of language minorities to provide multilingual materials for voting, yet advocates like Etcubanez remain cautious about adherence to this law.
Etcubanez noted that the executive order is likely to promote a message of exclusion within immigrant communities: "The message being sent to immigrant communities is that we don’t belong, and that we should have no expectation of getting assistance from the government, whether that is the services themselves or language support to access those services."
The reception of this executive order reveals a deep divide on language policy and the role of immigration in American society. As public discourse continues around the implications of this executive order, advocates for immigrant rights and language access are prepared to push back fiercely. They assert that accessibility to government services is not merely a bureaucratic issue, but a question of human rights—one that affects the lives of millions of people across the country.
As the nation grapples with this pivotal change, it becomes critical for stakeholders across various sectors—government, community organizations, and the general public—to engage in constructive dialogue about the importance of inclusivity and language access. The couple of voices that echo against this executive order will, without a doubt, play a significant role in shaping the policy landscape going forward.
