Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Illustration of someone holding a strainer, and the words "fakes," "facts," "news," etc. going through it.

Trump-era misinformation has pushed American politics to a breaking point. A Truth in Politics law may be needed to save democracy.

Getty Images, SvetaZi

The Need for a Truth in Politics Law: De-Frauding American Politics

“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” With those words in 1954, Army lawyer Joseph Welch took Senator Joe McCarthy to task and helped end McCarthy’s destructive un-American witch hunt. The time has come to say the same to Donald Trump and his MAGA allies and stop their vile perversion of our right to free speech.

American politics has always been rife with misleading statements and, at times, outright falsehoods. Mendacity just seems to be an ever-present aspect of politics. But with the ascendency of Trump, and especially this past year, things have taken an especially nasty turn, becoming so aggressive and incendiary as to pose a real threat to the health and well-being of our nation’s democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
Silence, Signals, and the Unfinished Story of the Abandoned Disability Rule

Waiting for the Door to Open: Advocates and older workers are left in limbo as the administration’s decision to abandon a harsh disability rule exists only in private assurances, not public record.

AI-created animation

Silence, Signals, and the Unfinished Story of the Abandoned Disability Rule

We reported in the Fulcrum on November 30th that in early November, disability advocates walked out of the West Wing, believing they had secured a rare reversal from the Trump administration of an order that stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers.

The public record has remained conspicuously quiet on the matter. No press release, no Federal Register notice, no formal statement from the White House or the Social Security Administration has confirmed what senior officials told Jason Turkish and his colleagues behind closed doors in November: that the administration would not move forward with a regulation that could have stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers. According to a memo shared by an agency official and verified by multiple sources with knowledge of the discussions, an internal meeting in early November involved key SSA decision-makers outlining the administration's intent to halt the proposal. This memo, though not publicly released, is said to detail the political and social ramifications of proceeding with the regulation, highlighting its unpopularity among constituents who would be affected by the changes.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

A memorial for Ashli Babbitt sits near the US Capitol during a Day of Remembrance and Action on the one year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

(John Lamparski/NurPhoto/AP)

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

In the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump quickly took up the cause of a 35-year-old veteran named Ashli Babbitt.

“Who killed Ashli Babbitt?” he asked in a one-sentence statement on July 1, 2021.

Keep ReadingShow less
Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

Supreme Court, Allen v. Milligan Illegal Congressional Voting Map

Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

A wave of redistricting battles in early 2026 is reshaping the political map ahead of the midterm elections and intensifying long‑running fights over gerrymandering and democratic representation.

In California, a three‑judge federal panel on January 15 upheld the state’s new congressional districts created under Proposition 50, ruling 2–1 that the map—expected to strengthen Democratic advantages in several competitive seats—could be used in the 2026 elections. The following day, a separate federal court dismissed a Republican lawsuit arguing that the maps were unconstitutional, clearing the way for the state’s redistricting overhaul to stand. In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers have advanced a constitutional amendment that would allow mid‑decade redistricting, a move they describe as a response to aggressive Republican map‑drawing in other states; some legislators have openly discussed the possibility of a congressional map that could yield 10 Democratic‑leaning seats out of 11. In Missouri, the secretary of state has acknowledged in court that ballot language for a referendum on the state’s congressional map could mislead voters, a key development in ongoing litigation over the fairness of the state’s redistricting process. And in Utah, a state judge has ordered a new congressional map that includes one Democratic‑leaning district after years of litigation over the legislature’s earlier plan, prompting strong objections from Republican lawmakers who argue the court exceeded its authority.

Keep ReadingShow less