Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

English as the New Standard: Understanding Language Policies Under Trump

News

English as the New Standard: Understanding Language Policies Under Trump

Writing "learn english"

Getty Images//Stock Photo

English as the Official Language of the U.S.

On March 1st, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order declaring English as the official language of the United States. This marks the first time the country has ever designated an official language in its nearly 250-year history. Currently, thirty states have already established English as their official language, with Alaska and Hawaii recognizing several native languages as official state languages in addition to English.


Generally, an official language is the language used by the government to conduct its day-to-day operations. President Trump’s order rescinds a policy established during the Clinton administration that required federal departments and organizations with federal funding to provide “extensive language assistance to non-English speakers.” However, it allows such agencies to keep their current language policies if they choose. In line with the order’s principles, Trump removed the Spanish-language version of the White House website within his first few days in office.

Public Response

The order drew criticism from human rights organizations, who argue that it harms immigrant communities and those seeking to learn English by reducing access to language assistance. Others stress that the order will make it more difficult for non-English speakers to access governmental services such as voting, healthcare, or English as a Second Language (ESL) education programs. Since the executive order could cause a considerable population of U.S. residents to lose access to these government programs, some have labeled it “a thinly veiled attempt to discriminate against immigrants.”

Immigration advocacy organizations have also emphasized the order’s potential impacts on the citizenship application process. Currently, applicants can complete the citizenship test and interview in their native language if they meet certain age and residency criteria. If the Trump administration expands the English-only standard to the citizenship application process, advocates fear several residents who completed a years-long application process would be disqualified from citizenship on the basis of their native language.

On the other hand, some argue the order has more benefits than drawbacks. In the text of his executive order, Trump argues that an official language will “create a more cohesive and efficient society,” suggesting that eliminating ESL requirements will push non-English speakers to improve their English language skills. ProEnglish, an advocacy organization that aims to codify English as the official language of all U.S. states and territories, argues that conducting government business in languages other than English creates “cultural-linguistic segregation” that disrupts “the ideal of the melting pot”.

Other supporters argue that the executive order was the common-sense culmination of a decades-long effort. Vice President J.D. Vance introduced a bill to codify English as the official language of the U.S. in 2023, stating, “This commonsense legislation recognizes an inherent truth: English is the language of this country.”

While the order does not require federal agencies and their beneficiaries to halt ESL programs and accommodations, the impacts of the order on non-English-speaking communities are likely to become clear in the coming months.

English as the New Standard: Understanding Language Policies Under Trump was first published by ACE and was republished with permission.

Vianna Rodgers is a Research Associate with the Alliance for Citizen Engagement.



Read More

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less