Trump Administration’s Attempts to Dismantle Language Access Do Not Erase Civil Rights Law

Earlier this year, President Trump issued Executive Order 14224, titled “Designating English as the Official Language of The United States.” Despite having no authority to do so, the president symbolically declared English as the United States’ “national language” and then ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to unwind 25 years of language access work in the federal government. See this NILC blog analyzing the order and its implications for further background and resources. 

In April, DOJ rescinded its 2002 limited English proficiency (LEP) guidance and on July 14, published new interim guidance in the form of a memo from Attorney General Pamela Bondi (“the Bondi Memo”) implementing the Trump executive order. While this guidance directs federal agencies to reduce their provision of information to people with LEP, it does not change civil rights law. Recipients of federal funding are required to provide meaningful access to their programs for people with LEP and may face legal consequences if they do not do so. This commentary describes the new DOJ guidance, the current state of language access and civil rights requirements, and expected next steps for the federal government. 

July 14 Bondi Memo 

The attorney general’s new guidance memo outlines how DOJ will implement Executive Order 14224 and provides recommendations to federal agencies. DOJ indicates it will minimize provision of language services and encourage other agencies to do likewise, though, as the executive order itself states, in-language information should still be provided when deemed necessary. 

DOJ will: 

• Rescind all guidance resulting from the Clinton-era executive order. In 2000, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13166, which required each federal agency to develop a plan to provide meaningful access to people with LEP. DOJ has issued guidance and resources over the years in line with this order, which the Bondi Memo acts to rescind. Many federal agencies and recipients of federal funding have relied on this guidance to understand their civil rights obligations, leaving a hole where guidance once existed. 

• Issue new guidance for public comment by January 10, 2026, after consulting with agencies that have existing language access plans.  

• Review all its materials and services for people with limited English proficiency and phase out “unnecessary multilingual offerings.” The guidance does not indicate how the agency will determine what is unnecessary. Given DOJ’s role in overseeing responses to violence and abuse, among other important matters, a reduction in support for survivors with LEP could lead to significant harm. 

• Temporarily suspend LEP.gov, a government website that has long provided data and best practices on serving people with LEP, along with all other public facing materials around language access. As of this writing, LEP.gov has been taken down. DOJ says it will replace these materials after it has issued new guidance.  

DOJ also encourages other agencies to revise their approaches to language access. While the agency has traditionally played a role in overseeing language access interpretation at the federal level, each agency has taken its own approach and is not required to do as DOJ recommends. The memo encourages other agencies to: 

• Review and rescind any guidance issued under the Clinton-era order that conflicts with the new Trump policies. This could lead to the end of many agencies’ language access policies and initiatives, including the dozens issued in recent years under administrations of both parties. 

• Consider which programs, as allowed by law, may be exclusively operated in English. Any program operated in English would, by its nature, exclude the over 25 million Americans with LEP. 

• Substitute machine translation and artificial intelligence for trained human interpreters and translators. This could lead to serious errors, as documented by a World Health Organization team. Multiple courts have found that machine and artificial intelligence translation tools are insufficient to meet legal translation standards. In H.P. v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago (2019), for example, a federal court found students had a basis to claim intentional discrimination when Chicago Public Schools failed to provide adequate translations and the students were forced to use “inadequate web-based translation services, such as Google translate” to understand documents. 

• Include disclaimers that English is the official language on documents. While acknowledging that multilingual information may be mission critical and should be translated accurately, DOJ encourages agencies to perpetuate the incorrect statement that English is the “official language” for all federal information. The federal government should strive to ensure information is provided to everyone in every language and that it is equally accurate. 

• Instead of funding language access, fund programs that improve English proficiency. However, the Trump administration has dismantled the services that help people do so. 

The Trump administration has already reduced the federal government’s provision of information in other languages, canceling contracts with translation services, failing to advance emergency alerts in non-English languages, and contemplating elimination of language services for tax filing. Members of Congress have demanded explanations for what this will all mean for their constituents. Language access is essential for the effective delivery of government services, such as health care, while cuts can increase cost and errors.  

The Bondi Memo’s Flawed Legal Analysis 

The Bondi Memo includes a legal analysis that may give the impression that Lau v. Nichols, the 1974 Supreme Court case that affirmed that language access is covered under civil rights laws, has been overturned. This is not an accurate read of civil rights law or language access.   

While the U.S. Supreme Court in Alexander v. Sandoval (2001) ruled that private individuals cannot sue under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act for disparate impact, no court has explicitly overruled Lau, and the Court in Sandoval made clear that individuals can still bring private lawsuits challenging intentional discrimination on the basis of national origin. This includes cases where language access may be discriminatorily denied, and where assumptions about language or language proficiency are used as a proxy to intentionally discriminate on the basis of national origin. 

The Bondi Memo cites a smattering of district court and circuit court decisions for the argument that language-based classification or the provision of documents in English and a lack of availability of translation services or documents by themselves do not automatically mean national origin discrimination. However, the arguments and cases cited do not preclude intentional discrimination claims where language or English proficiency are used as a proxy for national origin discrimination, which the Bondi Memo itself acknowledges. Nor do they negate the responsibility of the federal government to conduct its own civil rights investigations and potential to hold actors legally accountable.  

For intentional discrimination claims, the Supreme Court held under the headliner Arlington Heights (1977) decision that courts may review intentional discrimination claims looking at the totality of circumstances where discrimination was a motivating factor. These factors include but are not limited to: (1) statistical evidence of the disparate impact on a racial or national origin group; (2) the historical background of the decision; (3) the sequence of events leading to the decision; (4) any departures from normal procedures, and; (5) the legislative or administrative history, including (6) any discriminatory statements made by legislators, administrators, or other decision-makers. The Arlington Heights decision still stands today, and, in fact, the Bondi Memo cites it. 

While Sandoval limited standalone disparate impact cases brought by individuals, it still allows for consideration of disparate impact as a key evidentiary component central to intentional discrimination claims brought by private individuals in cases where they are denied access to federally funded services, programs, grants, or contracts. The Bondi Memo does not change the fact that entities receiving federal funding can still very much be held liable for national origin discrimination where they limit language access, and at any time, by the government or by impacted individuals. 

Language Access Is Still the Law and Funding Recipients Must Comply 

Despite EO 14224 and DOJ’s guidance, language access is still the law. Executive orders are not laws and, by their nature, cannot overturn existing statutes passed by Congress or regulations adopted by agencies through official processes. The Bondi Memo is only directed at language access services provided directly by federal agencies. DOJ cannot end the legal responsibilities of federally funded state, local, nonprofit, or private actors under Title VI.  

Civil rights laws continue to prohibit discrimination on the basis of national origin by recipients of federal funding, such as grant recipients, entities receiving reimbursements through public health insurance programs, and federal contractors. Any entity that does so risks liability under federal civil rights laws and investigations under any future administration, by state civil rights agencies, or by impacted individuals bringing intentional discrimination claims.   

Moreover, a number of independent federal laws and state statutes that govern many areas of the law still require public services, assistance, and materials to be translated into multiple languages or to be provided to individuals with LEP, and failure to do so risks further direct liability under these statutes. For example, Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act extends Title VI requirements to federal agencies that administer health care programs. Section 616 of the Stafford Act requires FEMA to ensure disaster information is available to individuals with LEP. The Food Stamp Act, Equal Educational Opportunities Act, Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Fair Housing Act, and Voting Rights Act all have language access requirements. 

Everyone still retains a legal right to obtain language assistance, such as qualified interpreters and translated documents from recipients of federal funding. If denied such access, people should seek assistance from a legal services provider. 

What Comes Next?  

DOJ indicates it will issue new guidance, with an opportunity for public comment, within 180 days. Federal agencies will determine whether and how to follow its guidance to cut or otherwise reduce how they provide information to people with LEP. To date, no other agency has publicly indicated its response. In the meantime, with the federal government’s willful disregard for the well-being of its residents increasing, it is more important than ever that service providers and state and local governments dedicate themselves to ensuring no one is denied access due to their English proficiency.