Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Dangerous Consequences of Declaring English the Official Language

Opinion

The Dangerous Consequences of Declaring English the Official Language
American flag
Photo by Ben Mater on Unsplash

en español

The latest presidential executive order designating English as the official language of the United States while simultaneously rescinding Executive Order 13166 is a shameful and unconstitutional attack on the rights of millions of Americans.


Our modern legal system is a direct descendant of Europe’s, which in turn was influenced by the courts of ancient Rome, where Latin was the predominant language. By eliminating federal language access protections, this administration has chosen to disrupt domestic tranquility by ignoring the very principles of equality and justice upon which our nation was founded.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits discrimination based on national origin. By dismantling language access protections, the federal government is effectively discriminating against millions of limited English proficient (LEP) individuals, barring them from accessing essential services. This order does not promote unity; it further marginalizes and disenfranchises communities that have long contributed to the fabric of this nation.

The highest court in the land has already ruled against policies that suppress linguistic diversity. In Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that “the protection of the Constitution extends to all, to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue.” The Court affirmed that prohibiting the use of other languages is not only unconstitutional but also unjustifiable, stating: “No emergency has arisen which renders knowledge by a child of some language other than English so clearly harmful as to justify its inhibition with the consequent infringement of rights long freely enjoyed.”

This landmark decision should serve as a stark warning to those who seek to erase linguistic diversity in America. The forced linguistic assimilation imposed by this executive order contradicts a fundamental constitutional principle: that all people—regardless of language—are entitled to the same rights and protections under the law.

The Constitution State Must Lead the Way

With federal protections stripped away, states must step in to ensure that all residents can access public services, regardless of their English proficiency. Connecticut has a moral and legal duty to pass SB 955, An Act Requiring State and Local Government and State Contractors to Ensure Individuals with Limited English Proficiency Are Able to Access Public Services. This legislation is not only necessary—it is urgent. It affirms that the state of Connecticut will not participate in this egregious violation of civil rights and will continue to uphold the values of accessibility, fairness, and inclusion.

We the People “—these words do not belong solely to those who speak English. They belong to all Americans, no matter their language, heritage, or background. “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” Lady Liberty’s message announces the American experiment as one of inclusivity, not exclusion.

This executive order is an affront to that promise, and we must resist it with every tool at our disposal. Connecticut, and every state that values democracy, must take a stand. The future of our nation as a Just and Inclusive society depends on it.

Doris Maldonado Mendez is a Connecticut Mirror’s Community Editorial Board member.

Read More

Pete Hegseth walking in a congressional hallway
Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to be defense secretary, and his wife, Jennifer, make their way to a meetin with Sen. Ted Budd on Dec. 2.
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

The War against DEI Is Gonna Kill Us

Almost immediately after being sworn in again, President Trump fired the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, a Black man.

Chairman Brown, a F-16 pilot, is the same General who in 2021 spoke directly into the camera for a recruitment commercial and said: “When I’m flying, I put my helmet on, my visor down, my mask up. You don’t know who I am—whether I’m African American, Asian American, Hispanic, White, male, or female. You just know I’m an American Airman, kicking your butt.” He got kicked off his post. The first-ever female Chief of Naval Operations was fired, too.

Keep ReadingShow less
“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”:
A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

Liliana Mason

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”: A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

In the aftermath of the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the threat of political violence has become a topic of urgent concern in the United States. While public support for political violence remains low—according to Sean Westwood of the Polarization Research Lab, fewer than 2 percent of Americans believe that political murder is acceptable—even isolated incidence of political violence can have a corrosive effect.

According to political scientist Lilliana Mason, political violence amounts to a rejection of democracy. “If a person has used violence to achieve a political goal, then they’ve given up on the democratic process,” says Mason, “Instead, they’re trying to use force to affect government.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Combatting the Trump Administration’s Militarized Logic

Members of the National Guard patrol near the U.S. Capitol on October 1, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images)

Combatting the Trump Administration’s Militarized Logic

Approaching a year of the new Trump administration, Americans are getting used to domestic militarized logic. A popular sense of powerlessness permeates our communities. We bear witness to the attacks against innocent civilians by ICE, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and we naturally wonder—is this the new American discourse? Violent action? The election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York offers hope that there may be another way.

Zohran Mamdani, a Muslim democratic socialist, was elected as mayor of New York City on the fourth of November. Mamdani’s platform includes a reimagining of the police force in New York City. Mamdani proposes a Department of Community Safety. In a CBS interview, Mamdani said, “Our vision for a Department of Community Safety, the DCS, is that we would have teams of dedicated mental health outreach workers that we deploy…to respond to those incidents and get those New Yorkers out of the subway system and to the services that they actually need.” Doing so frees up NYPD officers to respond to actual threats and crime, without a responsibility to the mental health of civilians.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Four Top Officials Can Win Back Public Trust


Image generated by IVN staff.

How Four Top Officials Can Win Back Public Trust

Mandate for Change: The Public Calls for a Course Correction

The honeymoon is over. A new national survey from the Independent Center reveals that a plurality of American adults and registered voters believe key cabinet officials should be replaced—a striking rebuke of the administration’s current direction. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are all underwater with the public, especially among independents.

But the message isn’t just about frustration—it’s about opportunity. Voters are signaling that these leaders can still win back public trust by realigning their policies with the issues Americans care about most. The data offers a clear roadmap for course correction.

Health and Human Services: RFK Jr. Is Losing the Middle

Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is emerging as a political liability—not just to the administration, but to the broader independent movement he once claimed to represent. While his favorability ratings are roughly even, the plurality of adults and registered voters now say he should be replaced. This sentiment is especially strong among independents, who once viewed Kennedy as a fresh alternative but now see him as out of step with their values.

Keep ReadingShow less