A Nation of Immigrants or a Nation of Exclusion?
English-only policies have little to do with communication and everything to do with controlling who belong.
Setting the Stage
On March 1, 2025, the White House quietly issued an executive order designating English as the official language of the United States. Under normal circumstances, such a sweeping declaration—effectively rolling back protections for multilingual government services—would have ignited immediate controversy. Instead, it barely registered in the news cycle, overshadowed by the fallout from a much bigger scandal: the disastrous Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Reports indicate that during the meeting, President Trump openly questioned continued U.S. support for Ukraine, floated an offhand remark about a “territorial compromise” with Russia, and suggested that Ukraine’s military situation was “not America’s problem to solve.” The backlash was immediate: congressional Republicans scrambled to contain the damage, European allies privately expressed outrage, and the Ukrainian delegation reportedly left the White House more uncertain than ever about the reliability of U.S. commitments.
While the media latched onto this unfolding crisis, the administration seized the moment to push through a long-standing conservative policy priority with little scrutiny. The designation of English as the official language—and the quiet revocation of Executive Order 13166, which had guaranteed language-access protections—was strategically timed to avoid the kind of backlash that might have followed on a less chaotic news day.
The Power at Play
The order’s claim that English has always been the “national language” of the United States is misleading at best. The U.S. has never had an official language, and for good reason. From its inception, the country has been multilingual, with indigenous languages spoken long before English arrived and Spanish, French, German, and others widely used throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. Even today, the U.S. has no shortage of bilingual communities—Los Angeles, Miami, New York, and entire regions like the Southwest and Louisiana have long histories of linguistic diversity.
The push to designate English as the official language has never been about communication. There is no crisis of understanding in the United States. Nearly 92% of U.S. residents already speak English, according to census data, and even among those who speak another language at home, the vast majority are bilingual. What this order is really about is signaling who belongs and who doesn’t.
Historically, English-only policies have been wielded as tools to marginalize non-white populations. Similar policies have been used against Native American communities (through forced assimilation programs), Puerto Ricans (through laws banning Spanish in schools), and, more recently, Latino immigrants targeted by restrictive language laws.
This order may not explicitly ban other languages, but its implications are clear: revoking EO 13166 removes a crucial layer of protection for immigrants, refugees, and other LEP (Limited English Proficient) individuals who rely on government services in languages they can understand. When access to healthcare, the legal system, and emergency services is restricted by language, it disproportionately affects already vulnerable communities.
A Lens of Justice
While the order presents itself as neutral, language laws have always had disproportionate effects on marginalized groups. Immigrants who already face systemic barriers to employment, housing, and healthcare will now find it even more difficult to navigate essential services.
The revocation of EO 13166 is particularly alarming in this context. That order required federal agencies to take “reasonable steps” to ensure meaningful access for LEP individuals. Without it, agencies may opt to cut translation services, placing non-English speakers at a severe disadvantage in areas like:
Healthcare: Hospitals and clinics that receive federal funding are no longer required to provide translation services, meaning patients who speak limited English may struggle to receive proper medical care.
Legal Rights: Non-English speakers facing legal issues—whether in immigration courts or other legal proceedings—could be denied crucial information about their rights.
Education: Schools that serve high numbers of multilingual students could see cuts to language-access programs, further disadvantaging children who are already adjusting to a new country.
English-only policies have always been deeply tied to race and immigration status. White European immigrants in the early 20th century were often given more leeway to retain their native languages, whereas non-white immigrants—especially those from Latin America, Asia, and Africa—have faced far more scrutiny and pressure to assimilate linguistically.
This order continues that pattern. It is no coincidence that the English-only push has gained steam alongside anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies aimed at restricting asylum, limiting legal immigration, and cracking down on sanctuary cities. The message is clear: you are only a full American if you conform to a specific, narrow version of “American identity.”
Reframing the Debate
The order presents itself as fostering unity, but true unity does not come from forcing assimilation—it comes from embracing diversity. Instead of asking why the U.S. should provide services in multiple languages, we should ask: Why are conservatives so afraid of multilingualism?
Language diversity is a strength, not a weakness – Nations like Canada, Switzerland, and Belgium thrive economically and socially while embracing multiple languages. The U.S. already functions as a multilingual society—erasing that reality does nothing to strengthen national cohesion.
Multilingualism strengthens brain function – Studies show that bilingualism improves memory, cognitive flexibility, and problem-solving skills, benefiting both children and adults. Restricting language access ignores the overwhelming research proving that multilingualism enhances—not weakens—intellectual development.
Language skills boost economic opportunities – Multilingual individuals earn higher wages, help businesses expand into global markets, and make government services more efficient. Countries that invest in language diversity gain a competitive edge in diplomacy, trade, and innovation.
Forcing English does not improve social cohesion – Learning a new language takes time, and cutting off access to essential services only makes integration harder for new immigrants. If the goal were truly to promote unity, the government would be expanding, not restricting, language-access programs.
No evidence supports English-only laws improving security or economy – This move does nothing to improve job access, education, or public safety. It’s purely a symbolic gesture designed to exclude and stigmatize non-English speakers rather than support their integration.
Building the Conversation
English is already dominant – No one is trying to replace English, and most immigrants already learn it. This order is a solution in search of a problem, designed to alienate rather than assist.
This order disproportionately harms vulnerable communities – Removing language-access protections makes it harder for millions to access healthcare, legal aid, and education, worsening systemic inequalities.
Multilingualism is a cognitive and economic advantage – Research shows that bilingualism delays dementia, enhances problem-solving, and improves memory. It also boosts wages and career prospects, making the U.S. workforce more competitive.
Bilingual education benefits everyone – Children who grow up in multilingual households outperform their monolingual peers in adaptability, creativity, and executive function. Instead of restricting language learning, the U.S. should be expanding bilingual education to prepare students for a global economy.
Other successful nations embrace language diversity – Countries that invest in multilingualism don’t suffer from instability or disunity—they thrive. The U.S. is an outlier in trying to enforce monolingualism, ignoring the economic and social benefits that other nations have long recognized.
The Counterpoint Trap
The administration’s decision to issue this executive order while the media was consumed with the fallout from the Zelensky meeting is a textbook example of the "flood the zone" strategy—overwhelming public discourse with controversy so that major policy shifts slip through unnoticed. While this tactic isn’t a direct bad-faith argument, it’s a reactionary tool designed to manipulate attention and prevent meaningful pushback. To counteract this, we need to deepen our understanding of how language policies have historically been used to enforce exclusion and consolidate power.
“If immigrants want to live here, they should speak English.” → Euphemistic Reframing (Dog Whistles)
Reality: Most immigrants do learn English. However, learning a new language takes time, and language access ensures they can still participate fully in society while they learn.“This order doesn’t ban other languages, so it’s not discriminatory.” → Sealioning
Reality: While it doesn’t outright ban other languages, revoking EO 13166 removes protections that ensure access to essential services, disproportionately harming non-English speakers.“A common language makes a stronger country.” → False Equivalence
Reality: Many strong, stable countries have multiple official languages. The U.S. doesn’t need to erase linguistic diversity to be unified.
Deeper Dive
To further understand the consequences of English-only policies, consider these resources:
"English Only: The Tongue-Tying of America" by Dennis Baron – A historical examination of language laws in the U.S. and their cultural implications.
"Linguistic Justice: Black Language, Literacy, Identity, and Pedagogy" by April Baker-Bell – Explores the intersection of language policies, racial justice, and power structures.
"Babel No More: The Search for the World’s Most Extraordinary Language Learners" by Michael Erard – Investigates multilingualism and the cognitive and societal benefits of embracing multiple languages.
The Last Laugh
For a party that loves to scream about “freedom,” conservatives sure do enjoy restricting how people express themselves. Maybe they should work on learning a second language—like the language of empathy.
We miss your content... come back!!!!
We miss your content... come back!!!!