Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Bracing for Language Access in the Trump Era by Cameron Rasmussen On March 1, 2025, U.S. president Donald Trump issued an executive order declaring English the official language of the United States.
[00:00:16] Left unarticulated in the declaration was the answer to a pressing to what degree would the executive order reshape language access in the United States? Was it a symbolic gesture or an order with real weight and transformative power? In the order's wake, language service provider LSP representatives, linguists and analysts took to social media to seek some clarity. But it may take time before that clarity is realized. Like many of the second Trump administration's disruptive actions in its early months, only time will tell the true impacts, and that uncertainty is at the heart of anxiety in the public and private sectors alike. Language and the United A Brief History the North American linguistic melting pot existed well before Europeans ever set foot on the continent. Prior to European colonialism, no fewer than 250 languages existed among the native populations from coast to coast. According to Teaching Native American Histories, an educational resource associated with the University of Massachusetts, these tongues comprise linguistic families like Algic, Algonquin, Iroquoian, Muskogean, Suan, Athabascan, Uto, Astakan, Salishan, and Eskimo Aleut. Following Christopher Columbus's 1491-92 voyage and the 1496 establishment of the first permanent European settlement, Santo Domingo, the era of European colonialism began in earnest, and with it came European tongues in their multitudes. Spanish colonization was expansive throughout the Caribbean, North America, and South America. Portugal likewise colonized Brazil following the Treaty of Tordesillas with Spain in 1494. The French established its first permanent colony, port Royal, in 1605 in modern day Nova Scotia. With England hot on its rival's heels, founding Jamestown in 1607 and in 1624, the Dutch brought their language to a small trading outpost on Manhattan island that would become known as Fort Amsterdam, and after its transfer to English control, New York. Thus, long before America was a glimmer in the Founding Fathers eyes, the New World was a hotbed of linguistic diversity, with native and European languages alike intermingling and influencing one another. According to Adriana E. Ramirez of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, the fight for the American Republic was also a fight of languages.
[00:02:58] The Revolutionary War included combatants who spoke English, German, Igbo, Algonquin, Iroquois, Spanish, Italian, Finnish, Siouan, Norwegian, Muskogean, Dutch, and many other languages. The war concluded with an American victory, but the linguistic fight was far from over, as the triumphant colonists considered the governmental direction for their new country, a choice of national language was a key consideration. Many associated the English language with their vanquished rulers and wished to completely distance themselves as a result of their independence.
[00:03:35] A strong faction advocated for German, ramirez wrote. After great debate, the Founding Fathers voted down John Adams 1780 proposal to declare English the national language.
[00:03:48] The Continental Congress considered the bill undemocratic and a threat to individual liberty, an affront to non English speakers who fought for freedom to Language Access and the Trump effect almost 250 years later, the tension between national identity and broad linguistic toleration took yet another turn with Trump's March executive order, and suddenly decades of language access policy were thrown into question. According to 2020 U.S. census data, the sizable majority of American residents, 245.47 million, or 78% nationwide, speak English at home.
[00:04:31] Spanish is by far the second most common language spoken at home at 41.25 million, followed by Chinese at 3.4 million speakers, Tagalog at 1.72 million, Vietnamese at 1.52 million, Arabic at 1.39 million, French at 1.18 million, Korean at 1.07 million, Russian at 1.04 million, Portuguese at 937,000 and Haitian Creole at 895,000. In total, 22% of American residents nationwide speak a non English language at home and may require support to access vital services. Support often sloughed onto English fluent family members or children who may not be qualified to clearly communicate highly technical information.
[00:05:24] The moral and ethical argument for equal access to vitally important healthcare, legal, educational and financial systems is a powerful one. The ethical responsibility of public service providers, including doctors, judges, teachers, first responders and police officers, is undermined when they lack the tools to communicate effectively with all individuals, wrote Equal Access Language Services founder and CEO Carol Volandia on LinkedIn. But it's not just a humanitarian issue. Language access is also critical for an orderly society.
[00:06:01] Government agencies depend on language access for emergency communications and smooth service delivery. Thus, many state officials, particularly those with a high percentage of limited English proficiency LEP residents, wondered what Trump's executive order meant for their day to day operations.
[00:06:20] Take Arizona, for instance. While 74.3% of state residents speak English at home, 25.7% do not. With Spanish being the largest minority. And according to News Network Arizona's family, not much is expected to change in the Grand Canyon state following the executive order, at least not yet. Trump's order gives states the option to continue offering documents and services in languages other than English, but all statutes related to language access remain on the books.
[00:06:55] That means that Arizona's impressive language access apparatus, which allows emergency operators to communicate in over 240 languages and dialects, will remain in operation for now. The Civil Rights act of 1964 is an essential buttress in the legal architecture. While most associate the act with the racial equality movements of the 1960s, the act also protects rights on the basis of religion, sex and national origin, which the US Supreme Court later determined to include language.
[00:07:29] For that to change, Congress would have to vote to rescind the 1964 law. The law is the one who supersedes the executive order, civil rights attorney Ben Taylor told Arizona's family. Unless somebody challenges this, I can see organizations still moving forward. As usual, it's an opinion backed by Bruce Adelson, a federal compliance consultant and former U.S. department of Justice DOJ senior trial attorney. While the March 1 EO executive order is serious and leaves many issues for future clarification, the EO specifically does not end the federal civil right to language assistance, he wrote on LinkedIn. Simply put, EOS cannot revoke civil rights. While an executive order can't surmount codified statutes, it does override EO13166, an executive order signed in 2000 by US President Bill Clinton that required improved access to federally conducted and federally assisted programs and activities for persons who, as a result of national origin, are limited in their English proficiency. While the new executive order gives states the flexibility to administer services as they see fit, its impact on federally tied programs and procedures remains to be seen. For the language services industry, this means disruption, nimsi co owner and co founder Renato Benignado wrote on LinkedIn. Contracts tied directly to EO13166 may be affected, but demand for translation and interpretation will not disappear. It will just become more challenging to predict. And what about the non states under American jurisdiction? The American territory Puerto Rico, which has long mulled the prospect of statehood, is unique as an island where public and private business is conducted primarily in Spanish. Over 95% of Puerto Ricans speak Spanish, while 20% are fluent in English and only 5% speak the language at home, according to NBC News. The Spanish language is central to Puerto Rican identity and the island's linguistic future is a major factor in residents choice to support or oppose a statehood movement. There will be no statehood without assimilation and Puerto Ricans will never surrender our identity, puerto Rican Republic, pablo Jose Hernandez said in a statement. For those of us who seek a union with the U.S. without assimilation, there is only one maintaining and strengthening the current commonwealth relationship. With this latest development, the Puerto Rican statehood movement may find new stumbling blocks in its path toward a new star on the US Flag. Statehood does not represent the loss of our identity, nor does it represent cultural changes, statehood supporter and Puerto Rico Democratic Party Chairman Charlie Rodriguez told NBC News. The statehood movement has always been clear. Turning Puerto Rico into a state is not about ceasing to be who we are, he added. The language industry reacts it's not just LEP individuals and state authorities who were left reeling from the uncertainty created by the executive order.
[00:10:51] Language professionals who depend on government contracts for their livelihoods also took notice, taking to LinkedIn Translators, Interpreters and LSP business owners and employees discussed what the changes might mean. Healthcare providers, legal institutions, and insurers remain legally responsible for language access, but without federal guidance, some may scale back services while others maintain them under existing legal requirements, benignado wrote. This uncertainty could lead to inefficiencies and uneven access across different sectors. Indeed, confusion and the consequent inefficiencies could be the most immediate impact. That might sound minimal until one considers its widespread and often atomized nature. The consequences are increased healthcare costs due to miscommunication, wrongful convictions in the justice system, and the undue burden placed on children forced to interpret complex information for professionals and family members, vallandia wrote. These outcomes not only affect 26 million of left individuals and their families, but also impede professionals from performing their duties ethically, thereby weakening public health, education, justice, and the economy. That's especially true given that the March 1, 2025 order overturns all federal policy guidance related to Clinton's original 2000 order. DOJ will now publish new, updated guidance, Adelson wrote. While the 13,166 guidance is no more, regulations such as Those for Section 1557, finalized in July 2024, remain in full force and provide good information about how and when to provide language access. So what's to be done in the meantime? For those wishing to take some direct action, Vallandia recommends advocating for language services.
[00:12:51] Individuals outside the language industry, especially those who speak English and are rarely or never impacted by insufficient language access, often don't understand its vital societal role. To raise awareness, Vallandia recommends encouraging government agencies to continue enforcing existing language access laws and policies and educating communities and service providers about its importance. Apart from that, however, Adelson believes that vigilance is the answer for anxious linguists. When public policy is oriented around creating waves, all one can do is avoid being capsized, understanding the possible outcomes and preparing for each one is the best approach for weathering tumultuous waters. The March 1 EO is more narrowly focused than its predecessors, leaving no clear legal basis for successful challenge, Adelson wrote. So what's next? Watching how the federal agencies respond, reviewing DOJ's new guidance when released, and making the public relations case in media and online for the vital salience of legally required language access that remains a federal civil right. This article was written by Cameron Rasmussen, a senior writer and editor for Multilingual Media. Originally published in Multilingual Magazine, Issue 238 March 2025.
