In a packed hearing room at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) headquarters, a consistent and urgent message rang out: Language access is not just a legal right—it is a civil right.
The hearing was convened to examine the consequences of President Trump’s Executive Order 14224, which declares English the official language of the United States and places language access at the discretion of individual agencies and departments. The public briefing brought together experts, advocates, and citizens to explore how this policy shift could reverberate through healthcare, education, the justice system, and beyond.
Titled Language Access for Individuals with Limited English Proficiency (LEP), the hearing centered on a single, striking statistic: 26 million people in the U.S.—more than 8% of the population—are Limited English Proficient. Among them are naturalized citizens, U.S.-born individuals, essential workers, and patients navigating critical life moments.
Now that the federal government has left language access decisions to the discretion of agency heads, panelists warned of a looming crisis.
Language Access as a Lifeline
President Trump’s executive order repeals a Clinton-era directive that created a structured, legally recognized framework for ensuring meaningful language access to federally funded services. Known as the “Four-Factor Analysis,” this approach considered the number of LEP individuals in an area, how often they interact with services, the importance of those services, and the resources available.
Panelists emphasized that the repeal of President’ Clinton’s EO 13166 represents more than a bureaucratic change—it removes clarity, consistency, and accountability from a vulnerable population’s access to essential services.
Speaker after speaker shared real-world consequences of insufficient language access:
- In health care, professional interpreters were often replaced by underqualified individuals during the pandemic, exposing families—especially children—to trauma, misinformation, and dangerous care gaps.
- In one harrowing account, a patient at Huntington Beach Hospital underwent multiple amputations after being denied an interpreter.
- In education, teachers and school districts have relied on immediate interpretation services to keep parents informed and students supported. Without access, studies show that parental involvement drops significantly.
- In the justice system, the absence of qualified interpreters can result in lost testimony from LEP witnesses or victims—leading to dismissed cases and unsafe communities.
The Danger of Discretion
Executive Order 14224 places the responsibility for language access on individual agency leaders, a patchwork approach that, advocates warned, creates a dangerous precedent—one where civil rights protections become conditional rather than guaranteed.
Silvina de la Iglesia of Mount Sinai Hospital captured the sentiment of many when she said, “We view language not as a barrier, but as an opportunity to enhance services.”
Yet without federal mandates or funding, even well-intentioned agencies may fall short—particularly amid shrinking budgets and rising demand.
Panelists pointed to several troubling developments already underway:
- Language access websites and public plans have quietly disappeared from Health and Human Services pages.
- Social Security Administration disability hearings are being canceled due to a lack of interpreter funding.
- Voting rights, once strengthened by language access protections, may now be at risk as states receive less federal guidance.
Potential Solutions
Several panelists advocated for codifying language access rights into law, rather than relying on the fragility of executive orders.
Others urged the ethical and measured use of AI in interpretation—warning against overreliance in high-stakes scenarios such as voting or health care without proper oversight.
Dr. Carlos Aleman of the Hispanic Immigrant Center praised the role of professional language access in under-resourced communities, stating that it must remain a core component of systems designed to promote inclusion, learning, and long-term connection.
A Vital Issue
The USCCR briefing underscored that language access is a vital issue—one that affects civil rights, public health, and participation in government services.
Health care emerged as a key area of concern, with panelists citing language as the second most significant barrier after insurance. Unlike many systemic challenges, they noted, solutions for language access already exist and could be scaled with clearer federal guidance and support.
Throughout the day, speakers stressed that the new executive order may sow confusion at state and local levels and reduce access for millions of LEP individuals.
Many called for uniform federal standards, sustainable funding, and thoughtful integration of technologies like AI—always with human oversight. Without such protections, they warned, essential services may become inconsistent or inaccessible when needed most.