Introduction
For decades, language access policy in the United States has been embedded in civil rights law, ensuring that individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) can engage meaningfully in public life. In 2025, federal policy on this issue changed dramatically when Executive Order 14224 established English as the nation’s official language and revoked Executive Order 13166, which had guided agencies in providing language access to LEP individuals for 25 years. This change was followed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) issuing interim guidance – known colloquially as the “Bondi Memo,” after the assistant attorney general who read the prepared guidance and the person who completed the instructions for the Department – instructing agencies to evaluate their language service policies.
These developments have raised questions within the government, education, health care, and advocacy communities as to where agencies, schools, and service providers stand on language access. Although the legal obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act have not changed, the lack of centralized guidance means agencies, schools, and service providers have been left with more flexibility – and more uncertainty – regarding how to fulfill legal obligations around language access for LEP individuals.
Historical Background
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive federal funding. Courts and federal agencies have consistently interpreted “national origin” discrimination to include the failure to provide meaningful access to individuals with LEP. This interpretation has been the foundation for federal language access policy.
Executive Order 13166 (2000)
Issued by President Bill Clinton, Executive Order 13166 required all federal agencies to look at the services they provide, identify information and language assistance needed for beneficiaries or intended beneficiaries, and develop plans to provide “meaningful access”. It also stated that federal agencies that were funding state and local programs should ensure that those recipients were complying with Title VI obligations.
Over the next decades, EO 13166 became the basis for agency-wide guidance documents, training, and compliance analyses. It also provided schools, health providers, and social services organizations with clear roadmaps for understanding obligations related to language access.
Executive Order 14224 (2025)
On March 1, 2025, EO 14224 revoked EO 13166, establishing English as the official language of the United States. Although it was largely symbolic to establish an official language, the order did require agencies to once again examine requirements for language services, while also stating that English should be the priority.
Executive Order 14224 (2025)
Signed on March 1, 2025, EO 14224 revoked EO 13166 and designated English as the official language of the United States. While largely symbolic in declaring an official language, the order also required agencies to reexamine language service requirements, stating that English should be prioritized.
The Bondi Memo: DOJ Interim Guidance
In April 2025, the DOJ issued interim guidance – informally known as the Bondi Memo – directing agencies to revise their language access practices. The memo did not eliminate language access entirely but encouraged agencies to scale back programs and provide services only when deemed essential.
This marked a significant shift from a uniform national framework to a system where each agency decides how, when, and to what extent it will provide language support.
Key Areas of Impact
1. Civil Rights Compliance
The rescinding of EO 13166 did not change the Civil Rights Law. Title VI still prohibits discrimination, and the courts have held that a failure to provide meaningful access to LEP individuals can be a form of discrimination based on national origin. Without the previous guidance issued to federal agencies by the DOJ, agencies may not have any sense of what “meaningful access” would mean in practice.
2. Education
In August 2025, the Department of Education withdrew a 2015 guidance document outlining how schools should meet their obligations to English learners under Title VI and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act. More than 5 million students in U.S. public schools are English learners, and the absence of clear federal direction has left districts to interpret the law independently. New federal guidance is expected in 2026.
Educators and administrators are concerned that the lack of centralized rules could lead to uneven practices across districts, with potential consequences for educational equity and compliance with federal law.
3. Healthcare
Healthcare providers have expressed concern about patient safety in light of reduced language services. Reports from California and other states highlight situations in which patients with LEP may face challenges in communicating symptoms, understanding treatment plans, or providing informed consent.
Although Title VI and provisions in the Affordable Care Act still require healthcare institutions to provide language access, enforcement may vary. Hospitals and clinics must now interpret their obligations more independently, which could result in uneven access to interpreters and translated materials.
4. Agency Variability
Some federal agencies have surprisingly upheld their strong language services in areas of need such as immigration, public health, and safety. Some have decreased their translation and interpretation programs. This inconsistency reinforces the importance of meaningful future DOJ guidance to ensure that some degree of consistency is established.
Looking Ahead
The DOJ has stated that it plans to publish updated language access guidance for public comment by January 2026. Until then, agencies, schools, and healthcare entities will grapple with their obligations without the clear structure of EO 13166.
Some overarching questions remain:
- How will agencies address the competing nature of the official-language policy and the obligations under Title VI?
- Will a decrease in guidance lead to an increase in litigation from individuals who believe their rights were violated?
- How will schools and healthcare entities ensure compliance in the absence of federal oversight?
Stakeholders across sectors are watching closely, as how these problems are resolved will determine how millions of LEP individuals will access education, healthcare, and public services.
Conclusion
Language access has been a civil rights issue in the United States for quite some time. While the legal standard is unchanged, the repeal of Executive Order 13166 and the publication of the Bondi Memo represent a sea change in federal policy. For now, it is up to each agency and service provider to decide if and how they will interpret and comply with their obligations, and the publication of new DOJ guidance in 2026 will be a momentous opportunity to see how these language access protections are operationalized.
Sources & Further Reading
- National Immigration Law Center. Trump Administration’s Attempts to Dismantle Language Access Do Not Erase Civil Rights Law. August 2025. https://www.nilc.org/articles/trump-administrations-attempts-to-dismantle-language-access-do-not-erase-civil-rights-law/
- Strauss, Valerie. “Education Department Quietly Removes Rules for Teaching English Learners.” The Washington Post. August 20, 2025. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/08/20/education-department-english-learner-rules/
- Allday, Erin. “Language Service Cutbacks Raise Fear of Medical Errors, Misdiagnoses, Deaths.” San Francisco Chronicle. August 10, 2025. https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/language-assistance-federal-cuts-20340700.php
- Garcia, Patricia. “Does the United States Need an Official Language?” The New Yorker. March 2025. https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/does-the-united-states-need-an-official-language