Lost in Translation: Language Discrimination and the Human Right to Access

Author: Olivia Weninger

June 20, 2025

The Symbolism of Trump’s English-Only Executive Order

Language is human communication, expression, and the basis of connection. It holds history, family, identity, recipes, and theories, and contains all our amassed knowledge. Language barriers, in turn, create disconnect, errors, frustration, and potentially life-changing consequences. On March 1st, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14224, designating English as the official language of the United States (The White House, 2025). This declaration revokes the Clinton Administration’s EO which required all federal agencies to have plans ensuring that government services were made available to people with limited English proficiency (Congressional Publications, 2025). While many states have already started their transition to declaring English as their state’s official language, the meaning of making it national is largely symbolic. It symbolizes a rejection of minority communities and marks a departure from the once-cherished ideals of the melting pot and the American Dream, shifting instead toward Trump’s MAGA vision of a “Great America,” where that dream and his version of the nation cannot coexist.

President Donald Trump signing executive orders on his first day in office. January 20, 2025 [Image credit: The White House via Wikimedia Commons]

Trump’s declaration is based on three main factors: foundation, unity, and encouragement. He states that, “From the founding of our Republic, English has been used as our national language. Our Nation’s historic governing documents, including the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, have all been written in English. It is therefore long past time that English is declared as the official language of the United States” (The White House, 2025). This statement undermines the fact that we are both a nation built on Indigenous land with Indigenous languages and a nation that came to be known for its immense multiculturalism. 

Secondly, he posits that his policy will encourage the learning and adoption of English for non-English speakers and empower them to achieve the American Dream. Unfortunately, his new policy creates additional barriers by removing mandates for translation services and increasing social barriers by creating an English-only atmosphere in America. This makes non-fluent English speakers, even those who are multi-generational Americans or currently in the process of learning English, further stigmatized, conflated, or undesirable (Flowers, 2024). People often want to improve their English, but English-only policies create more tension than they alleviate. As stated by Flowers (2024), “even if everyone did master English, it would not be enough to stop linguistic discrimination, particularly against people of color.”

Furthermore, he states that the unity of our nation will be improved by this decree. While it would, on paper and potentially in practice, aid in unity under a single linguistic identity, it just as easily promotes discrimination and an ideology that no language but English has a place in the US. Trump states that “a nationally designated language is at the core of a unified and cohesive society, and the United States is strengthened by a citizenry that can freely exchange ideas in one shared language” (The White House, 2025). In a later paragraph he states that “To promote unity, cultivate a shared American culture for all citizens, ensure consistency in government operations, and create a pathway to civic engagement, it is in America’s best interest for the Federal Government to designate one—and only one—official language. Establishing English as the official language will not only streamline communication but also reinforce shared national values, and create a more cohesive and efficient society” (The White House, 2025). A shared American culture does not mean one rooted in English, but instead one in which all cultures can flourish and be appreciated. This policy does not create a pathway to civic engagement but rather breaks down pre-existing ones. And while it would ideally create a more cohesive and efficient society, it is rather a more concrete manner in which to discriminate against languages, cultures, and entire groups of people.

This order may also have a negative impact on a variety of marginalized communities. For Indigenous language speakers, this official English legislation can undermine efforts to revitalize and preserve Indigenous languages. There are also a multitude of symbols that can be attributed to the nature of forcing Indigenous groups to prioritize English in official settings, as we have already built our nation on their stolen land. Secondly, especially in the current political climate regarding immigrants, the removal of federal mandates for language access means there are no guaranteed interpretation services for courts, healthcare, or social services. People learning English already face many barriers, including time, resources, and discrimination. Lastly, language discrimination ties into conversations about race. Linguistic profiling will only increase as language continues to serve as a proxy for race, with non-native speakers, or even those who speak English with an accent, being subject to greater scrutiny. 

While English has been our national language, nearly 68 million of our population speak a language other than English at home (Hernandez, 2022). According to the  2019 census, 61.6% of our population spoke Spanish, 5.2% spoke Chinese, 2.6% spoke Tagalog, 2.3% spoke Vietnamese, etc. (Hernandez, 2022). As we have always used English as our unofficial national language, the added step of officially declaring English as our language does nothing but harm those already systematically disadvantaged by taking away ESL resources and the mandate for agencies to provide them with the crucial support necessary to access services.

The real-world consequences of this action could easily grow to the level of a significant human rights issue. As a person living in the United States, you should have access to decent healthcare, legal services, and education. Lacking interpretation or translation services in healthcare can lead to misdiagnoses, incorrect medication, and compromised care. As there are already health disparities for non-English speakers, this discrepancy will only grow (Gonzalez‐Barrera, 2024). Limited English-speaking individuals may not understand important court documents, limiting their ability to defend themselves or exercise their rights. The removal of previously mandated interpreter services can easily complicate already difficult immigration and civil cases (Congressional Publications, 2025). Lastly, English-only policies in public schools can further marginalize students who are not fully fluent in English. This will only add to the systemic inequality and increase the risk of lower academic achievement, particularly in underfunded districts without English language programs.

With this decree, possible tensions arise between English-only mandates and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. English-only policies can disproportionately affect individuals with limited English proficiency, many of whom are immigrants or members of racial and ethnic minority groups, raising constitutional and legal concerns. Under the Equal Protection Clause, government actions that result in discriminatory effects may be challenged if they can be shown to disproportionately burden certain groups without sufficient justification. Similarly, Title VI prohibits recipients of federal funds from engaging in practices that have a disparate impact based on race, color, or national origin. Therefore, enforcing English-only rules could potentially violate these protections if it leads to exclusion or unequal access to public services, education, or employment opportunities for non-English speakers. This could be expanded to the international level, in which the United States’ commitments under certain international human rights frameworks advocate for linguistic inclusion and equitable access to public services. Example commitments and treaties could include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1992 ratification), and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD, 1994 ratification). In an increasingly global world, isolating communities through language barriers runs against our global norms. 

For combating a nationally enacted presidential decree, there are many approaches one can take, typically grassroots or community-based. Reinstating or strengthening mandates requiring federal and state agencies to provide language support, or voting to help increase funding for adult ESL programs and bilingual education would be crucial. Community-led solutions and local efforts that help individuals navigate health, legal, and educational systems can lead to policy reversals while helping the people around you. Lastly, open a dialogue. Reframe the narrative and encourage seeing multilingualism as an asset rather than a liability and lobby for inclusive public messaging that values cultural and linguistic exchange. 

Trump’s English-only executive order, like similar policies, threatens to undermine access to essential services and violates the principles of equality and human rights. By stripping away federally mandated language support, it disproportionately harms already marginalized communities—immigrants, Indigenous peoples, and non-native English speakers—while symbolically rejecting the multicultural foundation of the United States. In response, we must act. Contact local representatives, support community-led language access initiatives, and resist the normalization of English-only rhetoric. Linguistic diversity is not a weakness—it is a reflection of the American promise. Looking ahead, we must imagine a future where multilingualism is celebrated, not criminalized; and where language rights are protected, not politicized. Only then can we begin to live up to the ideals of equity and opportunity that define a truly united nation.

---

Glossary

• American Dream:The ideal that every person in the United States, regardless of origin or background, has the opportunity to achieve success and upward social mobility through hard work and determination.

• Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI):A federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance, including language-based discrimination if it causes disparate impact.

• Civic Engagement:Individual and collective actions designed to identify and address issues of public concern, including participation in democratic processes like voting, advocacy, and community organizing.

• Cohesive:Describes a group or idea that is united and works well together. In social or linguistic contexts, it refers to elements that create unity, connection, and a sense of belonging.

• Equal Protection Clause:A clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requiring states to guarantee equal protection under the law to all people, often invoked in discrimination cases.

• ESL (English as a Second Language):Programs and instructional approaches designed to help individuals who are not native English speakers to learn and use English.

• Executive Order:A directive issued by the President of the United States that manages operations of the federal government. Executive orders have the force of law and are used to direct federal agencies and officials.

• Linguistic Profiling:Judging or discriminating against individuals based on the way they speak or the language they use, often as a proxy for assumptions about race or ethnicity.

• Melting Pot:A metaphor for a society where different cultures blend together to form a single, unified identity, often criticized for ignoring or suppressing cultural differences.

• Multiculturalism:A societal approach that recognizes, values, and seeks to preserve diverse cultural identities within a unified society.

• Multilingualism:The ability to use and understand multiple languages, often seen as an asset in diverse societies and global contexts.

• Revokes:The official cancellation or withdrawal of a decision, right, or privilege, often by a government or authority. This action can affect legal status, access to services, or permissions previously granted.

---

Sources

1. Congressional Publications. (2025). Designating English as the Official Language of the United States.

2. Flowers, K. S. (2024). Making English official: Writing and resisting local language policies (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.

3. Gonzalez-Barrera, A., & Hamel, L. (2024, May 16). Language barriers in health care: Findings from the KFF Survey on Racism, Discrimination, and Health. KFF. https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/poll-finding/language-barriers-in-health-care-findings-from-the-kff-survey-on-racism-discrimination-and-health/

4. Hernandez, S. D., & Dietrich, E. (2022, December 13). Nearly 68 million people spoke a language other than English at home in 2019. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/12/languages-we-speak-in-united-states.html

5. Library of Congress. (n.d.). Fourteenth Amendment. Constitution Annotated. Congress.gov. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/

6. The White House. (2025). Designating English as the Official Language of the United States.