Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

English as the New Standard: Understanding Language Policies Under Trump

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

Food market, fresh produce

As federal nutrition aid is stalled by red tape and grocery deserts persist, local civic-minded organizations are responding with inventive, community-centered approaches.

Getty Images, Kvach Hanna

Prescribing Produce, Powering Markets: How D.C. Is Rethinking Food Access As Health Policy

In Washington, D.C., where neighborhood lines often map onto life expectancies, food insecurity has become a pressing public health issue. Wards 7 and 8, with only three full-service grocery stores, sharply contrast with affluent Ward 3’s 15 outlets. That access disparity correlates with a staggering 15-year life expectancy gap between some ZIP codes east of the Anacostia River and wealthier areas to the northwest. This inequality reflects what public health experts refer to as the social determinants of health – non-medical factors, such as access to nutritious food, that influence physical well-being.

A recent survey by the Capital Area Food Bank found that food insecurity impacts 37% of D.C. Metro Area households, disproportionately affecting Black residents in D.C., where four in 10 residents have struggled to access adequate food. “Where you live in the city profoundly determines your food insecurity and, in turn, your health outcomes,” said Luisa Furstenberg-Beckman, manager for the Produce Rx program at the nonprofit DC Greens.

Keep ReadingShow less
IssueVoter Bill of the Month (July 2025): The Global Stakes of America’s $9 Billion Budget Cut

As Congress considers slashing nearly a decade's worth of international assistance, the ripple effects could extend far beyond Washington's balance sheets

Bill Track 50

IssueVoter Bill of the Month (July 2025): The Global Stakes of America’s $9 Billion Budget Cut

The Rescissions Act of 2025 was finally passed on July 18 and its implications will reverberate across continents. This $9 billion budget cut represents far more than fiscal housekeeping—it signals a fundamental retreat from America's role as the world's primary humanitarian superpower.

The bill represents a significant fiscal policy initiative that seeks to permanently cancel previously allocated but unspent federal budget authority - known as 'rescissions'. Introduced in the House on June 6, 2025, by Representative Steve Scalise and five Republican co-sponsors, this legislation implements budget rescissions proposed by President Trump on June 3, 2025, under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The cuts essentially codify actions taken by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) over recent months - which has been criticized for appropriating congressional authority over budgetary matters by halting spending previously approved by Congress.

Keep ReadingShow less
Image of a U.S. map noting the locations of 1000 NPR Member Station signals broadcasting across the United States

There are over 1000 NPR Member Station signals broadcasting across the United States

There’s nothing “meh” about dismantling public media

This morning we woke to our local NPR affiliate, WAMU, reporting a story about how the public media network it belongs to is on the brink of losing funding, per a party-line vote in the U.S. Senate last night.

The public media portion of the claw-back is 1.1 billion – the amount Congress previously approved to fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes funds to NPR, PBS and over 1500 local radio and TV stations that serve communities around the U.S. The deadline for the House to seal the deal is tomorrow – July 18.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people holding hands, comforting each other.

The National Domestic Violence Hotline fields up to 3,000 calls and messages a day from all over the country.

Getty Images, Tempura

Trump Funding Cuts Endanger Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Survivors

The Trump administration’s funding cuts and new rules for grants are threatening critical programs from food and housing to medical research, parks, and much more. Among them are programs proven to prevent and reduce violence as well as initiatives that assist survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and other acts of violence.

Although the administration claims to care about violence—citing concerns about “rapists,” for example, in justifying policies that target immigrants and transgender individuals—its actions in fact increase the risk of violence and jeopardize survivors’ safety and ability to move forward. The administration’s harsh approach aligns with Project 2025’s failure to support critical social services, which can be a lifeline for victims of sexual violence or domestic abuse.

Keep ReadingShow less