Why Language Access Still Matters-Even Now

By Dawn Brantley, JD

 

In June, a new Executive Order from the Trump administration made headlines by declaring English the official language of the United States and rescinding Executive Order 13166 - the Clinton-era directive requiring federal agencies to implement language access plans. While the move was symbolic in intent, its real-world implications are far from abstract. For emergency managers and other public-facing agencies, this policy shift raises serious concerns about how we communicate with the people we serve-especially during disasters.

 

Let’s be clear: the legal requirement to provide meaningful language access hasn’t gone away. 

 

That mandate comes from Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on national origin. For over 50 years, courts and federal agencies have recognized that a person’s inability to speak English can be a barrier so significant, it amounts to national origin discrimination under Title VI. This principle was cemented in Lau v. Nichols, a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court case.

 

What Lau v. Nichols Taught Us

 

In Lau, the parents of Chinese-speaking students in the San Francisco Unified School District filed suit under Title VI. Their argument was simple: their children were being taught in English but couldn’t understand the instruction. Without specialized support, these students were effectively being denied access to education.

 

The Supreme Court agreed.

 

The Court ruled that treating all students the same, without regard for their language ability, was not sufficient. Because the Chinese-speaking students couldn’t participate meaningfully in their education, the school district was found to be discriminating based on national origin. Language, the Court said, is inextricably linked to national origin in this context.

 

This case set a precedent that has shaped decades of policy, including E.O. 13166, which required federal agencies to identify services needed by individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) and take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access.

 

What Has Changed-and What Hasn’t

 

The recent Executive Order rescinds E.O. 13166 and designates English as the official language of the United States. But here's the reality: Title VI is still the law of the land, and Lau v. Nichols is still binding precedent. Federal agencies, as well as any entity receiving federal funds, still have a legal obligation to ensure meaningful access for LEP individuals.

 

In emergency management external affairs, the stakes are even higher. When disaster strikes, timely and accurate communication can mean the difference between life and death. Whether it's evacuation orders, public health warnings, or recovery resources, information must reach everyone - not just English speakers.

 

Pulling back from language access isn't just bad policy; it’s dangerous.

 

The Practical Risk of Marginalization

 

If agencies interpret the rescission of EO 13166 as a green light to stop translating materials or downsizing language services, we risk cutting off millions of people from essential information. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 25 million people in the U.S. have limited English proficiency. That’s nearly 1 in 12 Americans.

 

In major cities and in many rural and tribal areas, LEP populations are not just significant, they are essential to the community fabric. Ignoring their needs during emergencies marginalizes them and undermines the public trust we depend on in times of crisis.

 

What Emergency Managers Can (and should) Do

 

We can’t wait for policy to catch back up with reality. External Affairs professionals in emergency management need to:

• Continue maintaining and updating language access plans based on community demographics.
• Budget for translation and interpretation services as essential components of public information.
• Engage trusted community organizations to bridge cultural and language gaps before, during, and after emergencies.
• Train staff on Title VI obligations and best practices for serving LEP populations.

Language access is not about political ideology. It’s about operational readiness, legal compliance, and human dignity. As professionals committed to protecting the public, we must resist the temptation to scale back language services in response to shifting political winds. Our mission demands better.

 

Final Word

 

The removal of E.O. 13166 doesn’t change the core truth: language access remains a legal requirement under Title VI and a practical necessity in emergency management. The precedent set in Lau v. Nichols reminds us that equal treatment is not the same as equitable access.

 

If we truly serve all our communities, we must ensure that language is never a barrier to safety, information, or survival.