6 ms·

One of the starting points of this article is that the current president has signed an executive order "making English the country's official language". I thin

by dmayle 2y ago

One of the starting points of this article is that the current president has signed an executive order "making English the country's official language". I think it's important to remind people what executive orders can and can't do. An executive order is an instruction sent to the government itself. It instructs government workers how to perform their job. It is not directed at the American public (though it can and does have an effect on the American public by way of government policy). As such, this current executive order effectively does nothing. We've attempted to pass laws that make English the national language, but have consistently failed to do so. And personally, I'm for having English be the national language of America (as a bilingual American myself), but this executive order does not make that so.

wasabi991011 2y ago
Reading the executive order[1], the only change is to revoke Clinton's executive order 13166 ("Improving Access to Services for Persons With Limited English Proficiency")[2]. There are no specific instructions of what it implies to revoke this order. My interpretation is that federal agencies will stop providing non-English services, unless these are already happening at 0 cost. (For example, not instructing agents to speak only English, but no longer considering second language proficiency in future hiring.) IANAL, but there may be legal complications, as order 13166's stated goal is to prevent title VI discrimination on the basis of national origin. However, the revocation explicitly states it should implemented consistently with applicable laws. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/designating-english-as-the-official-language-of-the-united-states/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/desi... [2] https://www.transportation.gov/civil-rights/civil-rights-awareness-enforcement/executive-order-13166 https://www.transportation.gov/civil-rights/civil-rights-awa...
- prawn 2y ago
  Shouldn't second language proficiency be an advantage if you were genuinely about hiring on merit alone, or am I misunderstanding the situation?
VWWHFSfQ 2y ago
> making English the country's official language I've always wondered what this actually means in practicality. The NYC MTA is still going to print the instructions for riding the train in 7 different languages. Is Taco Bell in Tulsa not allowed to print the menu in English and Spanish anymore? Like, what is the point of this. I'm willing to accept that it's just a feel-good for the President's base. Like Gulf of America.
- Finnucane 2y ago
  Basically, the point is to make it more difficult for non-English speakers (or people with limited language skills) to deal with the Federal government. As noted above, it's not a law and has no legal force to make private businesses do anything one way or the other.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  Generally, yes it means that in interactions with the government, there is more of an obligation for a citizen to speak English, rather than for the government to provide services in multiple languages. It doesn't affect Taco Bell because that's a private corporation. And it doesn't affect transportation because that's also intended for travelers, visitors, etc. Nor would it affect health care. But a good example would be driver's license exams. California offers those in 32 languages. Almost all states offer them in at least 2. If English is made the official language by legislation, there would be a strong argument to only offer driver's license exams in English.
  - thechao 2y ago
    Well, even more precisely: an executive order applies to federal workers in the executive branch. It doesn't apply to federal workers in the legislative, or judicial branches, and other sorts of workers. It certainly doesn't apply to private citizens or the states.
    - kweingar 2y ago
      ~98% of people employed by the federal government work in the executive branch (if we count military, postal service, etc.)
jedberg 2y ago
> As such, this current executive order effectively does nothing. That's not true. For example, there was a story the other day of a librarian who was instructed to throw away all passport application forms in Spanish, as they would no longer be accepted. If you go to the official Spanish page, you can see that the links to the forms are either broken or now redirected to their English version: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/es/pasaportes/requisitos-para-tramitar-el-pasaporte/formularios.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/es/pasaportes/requis... That's just one example of many.
- n3storm 2y ago
  Thanks. Feels funny seeing people say this government is doing nothing or nonsense and has no ulterior motives or implications. Funny in the sense of: are they blind? are they naive? or are they supporters? Hundred of technocrats and modern nobility cannot be wrong.
  - dmayle 2y ago
    There's an effect to be sure. I am, however, talking about legal status. As one of the other commenters pointed out, the actual text of the executive action is about rolling back a previous executive action designed to prevent Title VI discrimination. So, if I were affected as mentioned in the parent post to this, I would be reaching out to the ACLU to find a lawyer to help with challenging this. As to the stated wording though, "making English the country's official language" (which mirror's wording used in the most recent presidential address), the executive order has no power to do so, because it's not a law.
    - bigbacaloa 2y ago
      [dead]
  - kortilla 2y ago
    >Funny in the sense of: are they blind? are they naive? or are they supporters? You’re not understanding the comment you are laughing at. There was no legal change, there was an operations change in how the federal government does things. It’s still legal to speak whatever language you want and you don’t need to speak English
poulsbohemian 2y ago
>And personally, I'm for having English be the national language of America (as a bilingual American myself), but this executive order does not make that so. What would be the benefit or reason for this? I am also a multilingual person, and in many of the communities where I work, the Spanish speaking population is a significant majority such that to mandate English would be sisyphean. Sadly I can't get anyone to speak German with me, despite that being equally represented among Americans at the founding of our republic.
- dmayle 2y ago
  An official language isn't a mandate that enforces the use of English (take as an example India, which is probably the most multi-lingual country there is, but has Hindi as the "official language of the government". It's not the "national language", though in their case the splitting of hairs is probably directly tied to the number of languages spoken). I know an American who spent several years in Paris, working in English, and never learned more French than was necessary to order her coffee. And this is despite French being the national language of France. (Interestingly enough, France is very multi-lingual as well, with many regions having their own history and language like Provençal, or Niçois, Breton, etc.). It's more about a recognition of the status quo (as another commenter pointed out, most people acquiring US citizenship are required to demonstrate the most basic level of proficiency with the english language), and ensuring a baseline of support, no matter where you are in the country. Multi-lingualism is a plus, and in no way hindered by having a national language
  - vinay427 2y ago
    > has Hindi as the "official language of the government” First of all, I appreciate that you’ve made sure to draw this distinction between official languages of the central government and national languages. However, English is still an official language roughly on par with Hindi as a result of indefinite extensions that were provided for in the constitution (as well as protests and uprising). For example, parliamentary legislation is authoritative in English but must also be translated into Hindi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_legal_status_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_legal_status_in...
bryananderson 2y ago
> And personally, I'm for having English be the national language of America (as a bilingual American myself) Why are you for this? What problem does this solve, and how? Seems to me we have made it 250 years without an official language and that this has caused approximately 0 problems.
tombert 2y ago
It already kind of was. If you want to become a US citizen, you have to show you're competent in English. [1] It's been this case for quite awhile. I know that doesn't strictly mean that "English is the official language", but it is an official government body requiring you to know English in order to become a US citizen, so that seems a little official to me. [1] https://www.usa.gov/naturalization https://www.usa.gov/naturalization
- deepsun 2y ago
  Just to clarify, "competent" is a long stretch. It's more like "how are you" -- once you can just _read_ that phrase you're passed. There are couple more questions, but civics are much harder than English (e.g. how many voting representatives are there in Congress?).
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    > civics are much harder than English you can learn them all in your native language, and it really doesn't take a lot (done it). by contrast, you then still need English competency to answer the questions.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
cogman10 2y ago
> I'm for having English be the national language of America I guess it depends on what that means. I'm for all services being in English at a minimum, that makes sense. I'm really not for removing obligations to translate or interpret. Non-english speaking US citizens exist and interact with the government. For example, someone that's deaf. Or for reading, someone that's blind. Having access in those cases is important. But further, there's a humanity aspect as well. Any asylum seeker can get railroaded. Or heck, a visitor from another country. If these people are accused of crimes they should have the right to understand why the government is punishing them if for no other reason than to give their side of the story. Treat others as they would like to be treated.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  >Treat others as they would like to be treated. I have never expected a foreign government to provide English-language materials (especially non-tourism related materials) on any of my travels to other countries. Why should that be an expectation?
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    I agree. If I travel to another country as a tourist, much less live there, I have zero expectation that the people there will speak to me in English. It's nice if they do, but I see it as my obligation as the outsider to bend to their ways, not the other way around. I think that similarly, if someone lives here they should be expected to learn English. They don't have to give up their native language and culture, but the onus is on them to learn our ways, not the other way around.
  - cogman10 2y ago
    And yet they do [1]. I'm not saying that the expectation be there for all interactions in the country, I'm saying the expectation should be there if you are about to be charged with a crime in that country. Why should that be an expectation? Because if you or I am being held against our will, wouldn't it be nice if you had an interpreter who could translate what the officer, lawyer, and judge are telling you? IE, if they tell you "you have to do this to not be locked up for 10 years" wouldn't it be nice to know how to comply with a ruling against you? Wouldn't it be nice if when they asked you questions you could actually answer them? [1] https://eucrim.eu/articles/directive-201064eu-on-translation-and-interpretation-services-in-criminal-proceedings-a-new-quality-seal-or-a-missed-opportunity/ https://eucrim.eu/articles/directive-201064eu-on-translation...
pavlov 2y ago
Coming from North Europe, I always felt America’s loose definition of identity was its core strength. No national religion. No national language. No centralized identity registry. Social security numbers that are more like timid suggestions than actual identifiers. Opening a bank account with just two pieces of foreign identity. Enrolling your kids in school by simply showing up and filling some forms. I grew up in a country where I was assigned at birth with one state religion (out of two), a national language (out of three), and an ironclad digital identity number. The American approach felt like a breath of fresh air. I — and millions of others — could choose to be someone else than what the computer says. But the rise of Trumpism disillusioned me. Now I’m back in my home country and happily paying taxes to the state church while my children enjoy free education in four languages. What seemed like an identity straitjacket when I was younger now appears more like a spectrum of cozy options that I know how to navigate. Meanwhile America looks hell-bent on acquiring the straitjacket.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  I personally believe that the last few decades have shown us that a lack of unifying identity in America is a weakness, not a strength. We no longer have shared values, shared religious beliefs, shared customs, or really shared much of anything any more. And as a result, half the country viscerally hates the other half of the country. People living in cities disdainfully speak about "fly-over country" and how backwards and ignorant people are there. People living in rural areas complain about "big city liberals", and how they think they know everything but have no actual practical knowledge of anything. Both groups try to jerk the steering wheel of government back and forth with every election, and try to give even more power to the federal government so that they can use it to stop the other group from doing things they disapprove of. In my opinion, this sort of thing greatly weakens us as a nation and will eventually destroy us if we can't figure out how to find common ground again. It should be possible - we've come back from worse (say what you will about modern day US politics, it hasn't come to civil war yet like it did in the past). But I think if we're going to find common ground, part of it will have to involve cultivating a shared national identity like we used to have.
  - 2y ago
mlindner 2y ago
Executive orders have force of law so your nuance is kind of wrong here. This is well covered by court precent. It's not simply an "instruction".
- dmayle 2y ago
  It's the scope. Executive orders only apply to the execution/actions of the federal government. Laws apply to the general public. The creation of laws is a legislative power, and reserved to the legislative branch of the government.
elif 2y ago
While I appreciate the sentiment and underlying truth to what you are saying, one of the more sinister, real effects of this order will be that virtually all federal employees who are employed for multilingual reasons, can now be argued redundant. When you consider the racial and cultural backgrounds likely in foreign language speakers, the defacto action is to fire a lot of nonwhite people.
- psunavy03 2y ago
  As the law exists right now, you can only specify that people speak English for official work purposes. You can't stop two Puerto Rican dudes from speaking Spanish on their break talking about unofficial topics.
  - hilux 2y ago
    I mean ... you could hassle them, ask for their passports, arrest them at gunpoint ... (all things that ICE has done to US citizens within the past week).
regularjack 2y ago
I'm surprised that executive order didn't make American the country's official language.

by dmayle 2y ago

wasabi991011 2y ago

Reading the executive order[1], the only change is to revoke Clinton's executive order 13166 ("Improving Access to Services for Persons With Limited English Proficiency")[2]. There are no specific instructions of what it implies to revoke this order. My interpretation is that federal agencies will stop providing non-English services, unless these are already happening at 0 cost. (For example, not instructing agents to speak only English, but no longer considering second language proficiency in future hiring.) IANAL, but there may be legal complications, as order 13166's stated goal is to prevent title VI discrimination on the basis of national origin. However, the revocation explicitly states it should implemented consistently with applicable laws. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/designating-english-as-the-official-language-of-the-united-states/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/desi... [2] https://www.transportation.gov/civil-rights/civil-rights-awareness-enforcement/executive-order-13166 https://www.transportation.gov/civil-rights/civil-rights-awa...

prawn 2y ago
Shouldn't second language proficiency be an advantage if you were genuinely about hiring on merit alone, or am I misunderstanding the situation?

VWWHFSfQ 2y ago

> making English the country's official language I've always wondered what this actually means in practicality. The NYC MTA is still going to print the instructions for riding the train in 7 different languages. Is Taco Bell in Tulsa not allowed to print the menu in English and Spanish anymore? Like, what is the point of this. I'm willing to accept that it's just a feel-good for the President's base. Like Gulf of America.

Finnucane 2y ago
Basically, the point is to make it more difficult for non-English speakers (or people with limited language skills) to deal with the Federal government. As noted above, it's not a law and has no legal force to make private businesses do anything one way or the other.
crazygringo 2y ago
Generally, yes it means that in interactions with the government, there is more of an obligation for a citizen to speak English, rather than for the government to provide services in multiple languages. It doesn't affect Taco Bell because that's a private corporation. And it doesn't affect transportation because that's also intended for travelers, visitors, etc. Nor would it affect health care. But a good example would be driver's license exams. California offers those in 32 languages. Almost all states offer them in at least 2. If English is made the official language by legislation, there would be a strong argument to only offer driver's license exams in English.
- thechao 2y ago
  Well, even more precisely: an executive order applies to federal workers in the executive branch. It doesn't apply to federal workers in the legislative, or judicial branches, and other sorts of workers. It certainly doesn't apply to private citizens or the states.
  - kweingar 2y ago
    ~98% of people employed by the federal government work in the executive branch (if we count military, postal service, etc.)

jedberg 2y ago

> As such, this current executive order effectively does nothing. That's not true. For example, there was a story the other day of a librarian who was instructed to throw away all passport application forms in Spanish, as they would no longer be accepted. If you go to the official Spanish page, you can see that the links to the forms are either broken or now redirected to their English version: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/es/pasaportes/requisitos-para-tramitar-el-pasaporte/formularios.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/es/pasaportes/requis... That's just one example of many.

n3storm 2y ago
Thanks. Feels funny seeing people say this government is doing nothing or nonsense and has no ulterior motives or implications. Funny in the sense of: are they blind? are they naive? or are they supporters? Hundred of technocrats and modern nobility cannot be wrong.
- dmayle 2y ago
  There's an effect to be sure. I am, however, talking about legal status. As one of the other commenters pointed out, the actual text of the executive action is about rolling back a previous executive action designed to prevent Title VI discrimination. So, if I were affected as mentioned in the parent post to this, I would be reaching out to the ACLU to find a lawyer to help with challenging this. As to the stated wording though, "making English the country's official language" (which mirror's wording used in the most recent presidential address), the executive order has no power to do so, because it's not a law.
  - bigbacaloa 2y ago
    [dead]
- kortilla 2y ago
  >Funny in the sense of: are they blind? are they naive? or are they supporters? You’re not understanding the comment you are laughing at. There was no legal change, there was an operations change in how the federal government does things. It’s still legal to speak whatever language you want and you don’t need to speak English

poulsbohemian 2y ago

>And personally, I'm for having English be the national language of America (as a bilingual American myself), but this executive order does not make that so. What would be the benefit or reason for this? I am also a multilingual person, and in many of the communities where I work, the Spanish speaking population is a significant majority such that to mandate English would be sisyphean. Sadly I can't get anyone to speak German with me, despite that being equally represented among Americans at the founding of our republic.

dmayle 2y ago
An official language isn't a mandate that enforces the use of English (take as an example India, which is probably the most multi-lingual country there is, but has Hindi as the "official language of the government". It's not the "national language", though in their case the splitting of hairs is probably directly tied to the number of languages spoken). I know an American who spent several years in Paris, working in English, and never learned more French than was necessary to order her coffee. And this is despite French being the national language of France. (Interestingly enough, France is very multi-lingual as well, with many regions having their own history and language like Provençal, or Niçois, Breton, etc.). It's more about a recognition of the status quo (as another commenter pointed out, most people acquiring US citizenship are required to demonstrate the most basic level of proficiency with the english language), and ensuring a baseline of support, no matter where you are in the country. Multi-lingualism is a plus, and in no way hindered by having a national language
- vinay427 2y ago
  > has Hindi as the "official language of the government” First of all, I appreciate that you’ve made sure to draw this distinction between official languages of the central government and national languages. However, English is still an official language roughly on par with Hindi as a result of indefinite extensions that were provided for in the constitution (as well as protests and uprising). For example, parliamentary legislation is authoritative in English but must also be translated into Hindi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_legal_status_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_legal_status_in...

bryananderson 2y ago

> And personally, I'm for having English be the national language of America (as a bilingual American myself) Why are you for this? What problem does this solve, and how? Seems to me we have made it 250 years without an official language and that this has caused approximately 0 problems.

tombert 2y ago

It already kind of was. If you want to become a US citizen, you have to show you're competent in English. [1] It's been this case for quite awhile. I know that doesn't strictly mean that "English is the official language", but it is an official government body requiring you to know English in order to become a US citizen, so that seems a little official to me. [1] https://www.usa.gov/naturalization https://www.usa.gov/naturalization

deepsun 2y ago
Just to clarify, "competent" is a long stretch. It's more like "how are you" -- once you can just _read_ that phrase you're passed. There are couple more questions, but civics are much harder than English (e.g. how many voting representatives are there in Congress?).
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  > civics are much harder than English you can learn them all in your native language, and it really doesn't take a lot (done it). by contrast, you then still need English competency to answer the questions.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

cogman10 2y ago

> I'm for having English be the national language of America I guess it depends on what that means. I'm for all services being in English at a minimum, that makes sense. I'm really not for removing obligations to translate or interpret. Non-english speaking US citizens exist and interact with the government. For example, someone that's deaf. Or for reading, someone that's blind. Having access in those cases is important. But further, there's a humanity aspect as well. Any asylum seeker can get railroaded. Or heck, a visitor from another country. If these people are accused of crimes they should have the right to understand why the government is punishing them if for no other reason than to give their side of the story. Treat others as they would like to be treated.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
>Treat others as they would like to be treated. I have never expected a foreign government to provide English-language materials (especially non-tourism related materials) on any of my travels to other countries. Why should that be an expectation?
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  I agree. If I travel to another country as a tourist, much less live there, I have zero expectation that the people there will speak to me in English. It's nice if they do, but I see it as my obligation as the outsider to bend to their ways, not the other way around. I think that similarly, if someone lives here they should be expected to learn English. They don't have to give up their native language and culture, but the onus is on them to learn our ways, not the other way around.
- cogman10 2y ago
  And yet they do [1]. I'm not saying that the expectation be there for all interactions in the country, I'm saying the expectation should be there if you are about to be charged with a crime in that country. Why should that be an expectation? Because if you or I am being held against our will, wouldn't it be nice if you had an interpreter who could translate what the officer, lawyer, and judge are telling you? IE, if they tell you "you have to do this to not be locked up for 10 years" wouldn't it be nice to know how to comply with a ruling against you? Wouldn't it be nice if when they asked you questions you could actually answer them? [1] https://eucrim.eu/articles/directive-201064eu-on-translation-and-interpretation-services-in-criminal-proceedings-a-new-quality-seal-or-a-missed-opportunity/ https://eucrim.eu/articles/directive-201064eu-on-translation...

pavlov 2y ago

Coming from North Europe, I always felt America’s loose definition of identity was its core strength. No national religion. No national language. No centralized identity registry. Social security numbers that are more like timid suggestions than actual identifiers. Opening a bank account with just two pieces of foreign identity. Enrolling your kids in school by simply showing up and filling some forms. I grew up in a country where I was assigned at birth with one state religion (out of two), a national language (out of three), and an ironclad digital identity number. The American approach felt like a breath of fresh air. I — and millions of others — could choose to be someone else than what the computer says. But the rise of Trumpism disillusioned me. Now I’m back in my home country and happily paying taxes to the state church while my children enjoy free education in four languages. What seemed like an identity straitjacket when I was younger now appears more like a spectrum of cozy options that I know how to navigate. Meanwhile America looks hell-bent on acquiring the straitjacket.

bigstrat2003 2y ago
I personally believe that the last few decades have shown us that a lack of unifying identity in America is a weakness, not a strength. We no longer have shared values, shared religious beliefs, shared customs, or really shared much of anything any more. And as a result, half the country viscerally hates the other half of the country. People living in cities disdainfully speak about "fly-over country" and how backwards and ignorant people are there. People living in rural areas complain about "big city liberals", and how they think they know everything but have no actual practical knowledge of anything. Both groups try to jerk the steering wheel of government back and forth with every election, and try to give even more power to the federal government so that they can use it to stop the other group from doing things they disapprove of. In my opinion, this sort of thing greatly weakens us as a nation and will eventually destroy us if we can't figure out how to find common ground again. It should be possible - we've come back from worse (say what you will about modern day US politics, it hasn't come to civil war yet like it did in the past). But I think if we're going to find common ground, part of it will have to involve cultivating a shared national identity like we used to have.
- 2y ago

mlindner 2y ago

Executive orders have force of law so your nuance is kind of wrong here. This is well covered by court precent. It's not simply an "instruction".

dmayle 2y ago
It's the scope. Executive orders only apply to the execution/actions of the federal government. Laws apply to the general public. The creation of laws is a legislative power, and reserved to the legislative branch of the government.

elif 2y ago

While I appreciate the sentiment and underlying truth to what you are saying, one of the more sinister, real effects of this order will be that virtually all federal employees who are employed for multilingual reasons, can now be argued redundant. When you consider the racial and cultural backgrounds likely in foreign language speakers, the defacto action is to fire a lot of nonwhite people.

psunavy03 2y ago
As the law exists right now, you can only specify that people speak English for official work purposes. You can't stop two Puerto Rican dudes from speaking Spanish on their break talking about unofficial topics.
- hilux 2y ago
  I mean ... you could hassle them, ask for their passports, arrest them at gunpoint ... (all things that ICE has done to US citizens within the past week).

regularjack 2y ago

I'm surprised that executive order didn't make American the country's official language.