What in the word?

On March 1, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order designating English — and only English — as the official language of the United States. The move has sparked both approval and criticism, with organizations like the Linguistic Society of America and advocates such as Planet Word Advisory Board member John McWhorter and the Chairs of the Congressional Tri-Caucus condemning it as an attack on multilingual communities. Critics argue that this order could stigmatize non-English speakers and pave the way for discrimination against immigrants. To unpack the true impact of this decision, we spoke with language access advocate Bill Rivers, who offers valuable insights into what this change could mean for our multilingual society.

Q: What exactly does President Trump’s executive order making the English the official language do?

A: First, we need to start off by understanding what a presidential executive order can and can’t do. Executive orders are binding only on the personnel in the executive branch. Executive orders can’t change laws or overturn Supreme Court cases. Second, the U.S. has always had a de facto official language — an unofficial official language, if you will. And that language is English. More than 90% of the U.S. population speaks English. Third, this executive order cancels a previous executive order from 25 years ago, namely, Executive Order 13166, which was signed by President Clinton in August 2020. THAT executive order required federal agencies to develop language access policies and plans and to prohibit language discrimination by recipients of federal funding.

Language discrimination is itself prohibited under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1974 U.S. Supreme Court case Lau v. Nichols. State, and local governments, health care providers, and other organizations which receive federal funds are not allowed to discriminate based on race, color, or national origin.

Q: What is the difference between an official language, no official language, and “nationally recognized” languages? Why would a country have one (or more than one)?

A: Many countries have one or more official languages, sometimes specified in their constitutions, sometimes in laws passed by their legislatures. Ireland has Irish and English; Canada has English and French; Kazakhstan has Kazakh and Russian. South Africa has 13 official languages!

Some countries have more than one language because there are large parts of the country, like Quebec in Canada, where the majority language is different from the one used in the rest of the country. In most cases, the recognition of another language is very important for the speakers of that language, and it usually brings rights to education in the language, interaction with the government in the language, and so on.

Q: Why has the U.S. historically not had an official language?

A: We’ve never needed an official language. English has been the de facto official language of the U.S. since 1776. The federal government — Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Federal Courts — conduct their business in English. Education occurs primarily in English, with the exception of Dual Language Immersion programs. At the same time, businesses and charitable organizations are mostly free to use other languages as they see fit. This happens when the clientele speaks other languages.

And it’s important to remember that the United States has always been linguistically and culturally diverse. At present, more than 800 immigrant languages are spoken in the U.S., and another 150 or so Native American, Alaska Native, and Hawai’ian and Pacific Islander languages are spoken here.

Q: Why is it important to provide materials to support non-English speakers, such as election materials in languages other than English?

A: We should make these resources available for three reasons: first, in very practical terms, we need to acknowledge the reality of providing services and benefits of all kinds, at every level of government, to more than 26 million people who don’t speak English. These services would be inaccessible or at best very inefficient, and at worst, actively harmful, if the service providers can’t communicate with their clients. This is most acute in health care and in the legal system, but it applies to all services. Second, behind the basic need to communicate, language access is a civil right. Providing language access is the law of the land for any service that has any amount of federal funding, as well as in the entire healthcare system. Finally, providing quality language access means more efficient service delivery overall. IN healthcare, for example, the provision of language access correlates with better patient adherence to instructions, lower readmission rates, fewer malpractice claims, and more. Language access improves patients’ lives and saves healthcare providers more money in treatment than they spend on language access.

Q: Are there larger societal benefits to promoting multilingualism?

A: Multilingual societies are the norm — historically, there are actually very few countries where only one language is spoken. Even in a small country like Iceland, children must learn Danish, English, and one other language by the time they leave high school. While machine translation and AI have made it somewhat easier to move ideas from one language to another, there’s still no substitute for real human understanding and communication. In the U.S., that shows up in the ongoing need for folks who speak languages critical to national security, and for employees who can work across languages and cultures in the private sector. Recent research shows that roughly 10% of U.S. companies have jobs requiring skills in a language other than English, and almost a third of U.S. companies report that they have lost sales because they couldn’t find people who could communicate in their customers’ languages.

Q: Before the issuance of the executive order, 30 states had already made English their official language. What kind of impact could the declaration of a national official language have on the American people?

A: The national level proclamation of English as the official language of the U.S. really won’t impact the day to day lives of anyone. All of our governments — from the town council and school board up to the federal government — operate in English first and foremost. On the other hand, there’s a century of U.S. Supreme Court case law that makes it clear that the government, employers, schools, and so forth, can’t issue blanket restrictions on what languages people use in their daily loves. The exceptions to this get pretty specific — workplace or public safety issues, classroom practice, and so on. English is already the de facto official language of the U.S. and has been since 1776. These kinds of bills are symbolic, and can be divisive, but they really don’t have any impact.

Q: While the executive order doesn’t require agencies to operate only in English, several language access advocacy groups have expressed concerns that removing the requirement to provide translated materials could mean less access to civic life for immigrants and non-English speakers. Are these concerns valid?

A: Federal agencies are bound by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and by Supreme Court case law. If an individual needs interpreting or translation in order to access a federal service, or to participate in court, then they are entitled to language access. The concern that advocates for language access have is that some federal agencies might pull back on their support for language access, or that they might no longer require their contractors and grantees to provide language access.

Guidance isn’t binding, but the work done over the past 25 years by federal agencies has resulted in a wealth of practical information for covered entities as they develop language access policies, plans, and procedures. Advocates are also concerned that the explicit requirements imposed by EO 13166 on recipients of Federal funds might also fall off the table. In other words, contracts and grants might no longer explicitly require language access compliance. More broadly, advocates are concerned that the revocation of EO 13166 might create a “permission structure” for individuals or covered entities to deny language access, even if Title VI, Lau v. Nichols, and so on are still very much the law of the land.

Q: The Biden-Harris administration released a 10-year National Plan on Native Revitalization in 2024, including a plan to revitalize Indigenous languages. How could this executive order impact federal support for Indigenous language revitalization efforts across the country?

A: This executive order doesn’t affect funding for learning languages. In terms of Native American, Alaska Native, and Hawai’ian and Pacific Islander languages, funding comes from several agencies — the U.S. Department of Education’s Indian Education Office, the Bureau of Indian Education in the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Administration for Native Americans in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and several other agencies. This Executive Order doesn’t affect their budgets and spending.

Q: When considered alongside recent changes to the Department of Education, can we expect an impact on ESL or bilingual education?

A: That’s hard to say. Bilingual and dual language immersion education are in high demand. And it’s important to remember that only 10%–15% of education funding comes from the Federal government. And again, this executive order doesn’t have any specific requirements regarding ESL, Bilingual Education, or Dual Language Immersion.

Q: Are there any resources you would recommend to people who would like to learn more about language access in their area?

A: The Migration Policy Institute has an excellent report on state and local language access laws.

Dr. Bill Rivers is a member of Planet Word’s Advisory Board and the Principal of WP Rivers & Associates, focusing on advocacy and consulting for the language industry, access, and multilingual learners. A former Russian-English translator and interpreter who speaks seven languages, he has worked on language capacity in higher education, the intelligence community, and the private sector for more than 35 years.