On March 1st US President Trump signed an executive order (EO) designating English as the official language of the United States. This action takes the first step to reverse a decades-long federal policy of providing critical government, health, judiciary, and other services to US residents with limited English proficiency (LEP). In this brief we focus on the objective details of the EO, breaking down what was taken away and what remains.

The United States of America Has Always Been Multilingual

The US has always been a multilingual country. During the ratification debate in 1788, the US Constitution was translated into Dutch and German to reach parts of the electorate who did not speak English. Three waves of immigrants landed in the United States over the next 200 years: 10 million (1820-1880), 12 million (late 1800s-early 1900s), and 59 million (post-1965). More recently, US openness to foreign-born nationals has been brushed aside by concerns with illegal immigration. Among other actions such as border closures, it’s led to a call for English to be the official language in the US.

Official languages are common, with many countries having more than one: Data from the United Nations shows that 91% of all countries have an official language (178). 57% (101) of those have two or more (Bolivia has 37). Even within the United States, 30 states already recognize English as the official language. A few – Alaska, Hawaii, and South Dakota – have given the official status to additional languages, too – Alaska has English plus 20 native languages. How big is this need? According to US Census data from 2022, roughly 10% of US residents speak a language other than English at home, more than triple the amount in 1980.

Practicalities: LEP Programs Meet Essential Needs 

For US citizens as well as legal and illegal immigrants for whom speaking or reading English is difficult (or not an option), the US and state governments have long made available a variety of programs and services for these limited English proficiency (LEP) residents. President Clinton’s executive order 13166 in 2000 on language services for these communities recognized the need to improve access to LEP programs. It’s been updated multiple times over two decades to clarify requirements, improve services, and create efficiencies.

• What does this new executive order eliminate? Nearly 25 years of guidance and policies developed around EO 13166 are, according to President Trump’s EO, “hereby revoked.” The impact on LEP programs is unclear, because the current EO goes on to state, “Agency heads should make decisions… to fulfill their respective agencies’ mission…” and “Agency heads are not required to amend, remove, or otherwise stop production of documents, products, or other services prepared or offered in languages other than English.” It goes on to state the Attorney General shall “... provide updated guidance, consistent with applicable law.” 
• Which requirements remain? Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 continues to be in force with its requirements for language assistance. Because it is a federal statute passed by Congress and signed into law by then President Johnson, the US Constitution’s clause on the separation of powers prohibits unilateral revocation by the current President (at least for now). Likewise, Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, also exempt from such cancellation, includes provision for LEP assistance. Other federal and state protections will also remain. 

While many LEP protections remain in effect, the efficiencies realized by EO 13166 may not. For example, in 2022 there was a memorandum designed to strengthen the government’s access to language. A year later, 28 agencies had updated their language access with the intent of sharing best practices with another 18 in the process of updating theirs. That work is likely to be eliminated along with EO 13166. 

What It Means

While the EO declares that English as an official language would have a simplifying and uniting effect, the reality of scrapping the policies, guidance, and efficiencies that EO 13166 provided may yield the opposite result. By revoking EO 13166, the administration is, in large part, reverting to vague protections against discrimination based on “race, color, or national origin.” 

With that legal fuzziness, the LEP community may feel even further isolated if the access and quality of language services they rely upon wane. Government agencies, many currently under review and revision by the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), are already under-resourced. Complicating matters are the more than 75,000 federal employees who have already taken the DOGE-preferred employment buyout – and thousands more have been fired.

With the ambiguity and questions that the EO designating English as the official language introduces, federal agencies will likely need more LEP resources and guidance, not less. Some language service providers may be able to help fill those gaps, though with cost cutting being a top priority, that too is uncertain.

We advise providers of LEP services to review their particular situation: 

• Does your business rely heavily on federal contracts? Review your business exposure and study how you could diversify into other sectors. The DOGE approach of cutting first and evaluating the damage later puts those contracts at risk. Initiatives, such as DEI, and even agencies such as USAID are being slashed – both budgets and employees. 
• Can you shift from LEP-mandated work to commercial services? For those that do need to diversify, the good news is there’s still a robust market within the United States for non-English languages. Our review of the opportunity in the US shows the economic potential of Spanish in the US is close to that of Italian globally and Chinese in the US ranks close to Hungarian worldwide. Caveat vendor: Selling commercially requires a different approach to marketing, sales, and often project management and other operational tasks. When reviewing the potential for a shift, consider how you adjust from tracking down opportunities within an RFP to hunting opportunities in the commercial sector.
• Can you identify opportunities that are exempt from the official language act? There’s also the legality of translation. While the guidance of EO 13166 is gone, there’s still the mandate that any program funded at the federal level is required to provide LEP services. 

Finally, keep an eye on this space. Even after rescinding EO 13166, President Trump’s EO states the Attorney General shall “... provide updated guidance, consistent with applicable law.” The timeline for delivering such directives has yet to be determined, so pay close attention to the federal news feeds and registers and keep in contact with your clients. Reach out to them to offer your support in this time of uncertainty – they may be able to provide you with greater insights than any media or news report.