Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Online Federal Multilingual Resources Continue to Disappear under Trump Executive Order

News

Online Federal Multilingual Resources Continue to Disappear under Trump Executive Order

LEP.gov, an online library of multilingual materials, used to be a resource for agencies and individuals alike but was suspended in July after Trump’s executive order.

WASHINGTON - On March 1, President Donald Trump issued an executive order declaring English as the United States’ official language. Since then, some federal agencies, like the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing & Urban Development, have removed multilingual resources from their websites; others have not. The executive order does not require their removal.

Language access, or the provision of non-English translation services or materials, assists over 25 million individuals in the United States with limited English proficiency (LEP). Experts say reducing language access will hurt government efficiency.


“It will make government programs less effective because they'll be unable to reach many individuals that they might reach otherwise,” Jacob Hofstetter, a policy analyst from the Migration Policy Institute, said.

Trump’s executive order repeals a Clinton executive order that required federal agencies to provide language access for public-facing programs.

Since Trump’s order, the DOJ has taken down almost all of its multilingual resources. HUD took down much of its multilingual materials, eliminated non-English translation services, and issued an “English only policy.” Additionally, lep.gov, a centralized online library of multilingual resources, was suspended in July. The website now reads that the “materials will be replaced when new guidance is issued.”

The website, launched in 2002 by the DOJ, included links to federal agencies’ guidance on Limited English Proficiency. Hofstetter said this removal could have a rippling effect across the federal government.

“[It] was used as a model for a lot of other agencies' guidance,” Hofstetter said. “It has also been a key source of technical assistance and information for a wide range of entities that receive federal funding, that are seeking to provide language access. Though it was always guidance, the rescinding of it does also represent a pretty serious consequence for the field.”

Hofstetter said Clinton’s original executive order “filled some gaps” in previous legislation, like Title VI and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that required language access only for federally funded programs, but not federal agencies.

Trump’s guidance comes in the form of an executive order, and can’t override current law. Federally funded programs are still required to provide language access in accordance with previous laws.

Mara Youdelman, managing director of the National Health Law Program, said Trump’s executive order is confusing for some federally funded programs about their language responsibilities.

“It certainly seems to imply, ‘Well, okay, we don't have to provide services,’” Youdelman said. “But executive orders don't exist in a vacuum, and they have to be understood and read in conjunction with other requirements.”

She said this confusion is intentionally “sown by this administration” to prevent LEP individuals from getting help.

“There's also really serious public safety and public health implications that come along with language access as well,” Hofstetter said. “You can imagine if you didn't issue emergency alerts in languages other than English, folks might be exposed to dangers from natural disasters or other events solely due to their limited proficiency in English.”

A memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi says the DOJ plans to issue new language access guidance early next year.

“The Department will issue new guidance, for public comment, that presents clear, practical guidelines that help agencies prioritize English while explaining precisely when and how multilingual assistance remains necessary to fulfill their respective agencies' mission and efficiently provide Government services,” Bondi said.

Hofstetter warned that this could be just the start of limiting language.

Isabella Jacob covers immigration and demographics for Medill on the Hill. The Michigan native is a sophomore at Northwestern University studying journalism and entrepreneurship.


Read More

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

Members of the House Judiciary Committee during the hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Credit: Olivia Ardito

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing last Wednesday examining claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center had funded the very hate groups the center aims to dismantle. Tensions were high as Republicans and Democrats fired back at each other. Noticeably absent was a representative from the center, a non-profit that since 1971 has fought for racial justice and against white supremacy.

The hearing came after the Texas Attorney General Ken Pax­ton announced last Monday that he was investigating the center. The U.S. Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center in April for allegedly funneling money to people associated with violent extremist groups. The group has flatly rejected the accusations. While Republicans backed these claims, Democrats viewed the allegations as part of the Trump-backed efforts to hinder “DEI” and other racial justice initiatives.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

GemaIbarra / Getty Images

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.

Keep ReadingShow less
The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
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