The AAR has endorsed the following statement by the Linguistic Society of America “Against Designating English as the Official Language.” You can read the statement at this link and also view organziations that have endorsed it. The statement text is included below:
LSA Statement Against Designating English as the Official Language
March 2025
Four Reasons Why English Should Not be the Official Language of the United States: Statement Against White House Executive Order “Designating English as the Official Language of The United States”
The Linguistic Society of America (LSA) strongly opposes the White House Executive Order of March 1, 2025 “Designating English as the Official Language of The United States.” Below we list four of the justifications given in the Executive Order in support of Official English, and explain why they are not valid—and in many cases, even undermine the order’s stated goals.
EO Statement #1: From the founding of our Republic, English has been used as our national language. Our Nation’s historic governing documents, including the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, have all been written in English.
Reply: The United States has always been a multilingual country, and this gives it strength.
Contrary to popular belief, the United States is not now and has never been a monolingual country. One out of five U.S. residents in 2019 reported having a language background other than English (Dietrich & Hernandez, 2022), and this diversity is nothing new (Baron, 1991; Johnson, 2009). As Crawford (1990) notes, by 1664, when the British took control of the colony of New Netherland, Manhattan Island was home to speakers of 18 different immigrant languages and several Native American languages. Today, New York City, with its 800 languages, is recognized as one of the most linguistically diverse cities in the world.
Official language legislation at the federal level has been proposed to Congress several times in U.S. history beginning in 1981, but has never passed in both houses (Crawford, 2013). The Founding Fathers chose not to formalize a link between language and American identity. Notably, their only official statement about language, expressed in the first amendment to the Constitution was, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech….” This right is not limited in the Bill of Rights to any particular language.
We know from their writings that early leaders like Thomas Jefferson took pride in their multilingualism and urged educated citizens to study languages as well (Heath, 1976). There was such a sizable German-speaking population around the time of the American Revolution (9% of the population (Ferguson & Heath, 1981)) that in order to ratify the Constitution in 1787 and 1788, states like Pennsylvania and New York translated and distributed copies in German and Dutch in order to ensure sufficient debate and participation (Bartgis, 2021; Rippley, 1976). In other words, the United States has been home to significant linguistic diversity since its inception (Crawford 1990; Wiley & Wright 2004). English therefore does not have special historical standing that justifies enshrining it as the single ‘official’ language of the United States.
The executive order appears to take no consideration of signed languages. American Sign Language (ASL) is the primary linguistic system for approximately 500,000 Americans—their first language (RICDHH, 2025). ASL is not based upon English: it is a complete, complex separate language. What does this Executive Order mean for these Americans? At a time when equity in education for deaf and hard-of-hearing (D/HH) children, employment of D/HH adults, and the well-being of both youth and senior signers are national imperatives, access to ASL (including for children learning their first language), teaching in, and interpreting of ASL is critical (National Association for the Deaf, 2025; RIT/NTID, 2025). The National Association of the Deaf recently released its own set of concerns about new ASL-related policy (Rose and Scoggins, 2025).
EO Statement #2: A nationally designated language is at the core of a unified and cohesive society, and the United States is strengthened by a citizenry that can freely exchange ideas in one shared language.
Reply: Citizens of the US and of all democracies inevitably have different linguistic ways of navigating their lives, and enforced monolingualism never achieves national unity.
The Executive Order promotes a false, exclusionary belief that a nation must have one, official language in order to be unified. Although nations have often tried to use language to enforce a common civic or national identity (Anderson 1991), in fact citizens of democracies inevitably have different linguistic ways of navigating their lives (Kymlicka and Patten 2003).
More than 80% of the world’s countries are officially bi- or multilingual. In many of these, minority languages that are native to a country or territory (e.g. Scottish Gaelic and Welsh in the United Kingdom) are included in official language policy. In Canada, both English and French are official languages, and several indigenous languages (including Chipewyan and Cree) are protected for use as languages of instruction. In South Africa, 11 official languages are legislated, including English, Afrikaans, Zulu, Xhosa, and others, under a “mother tongue” model of multilingualism. Recognition of the presence and contributions of historically important groups provides other models for national official language policy worldwide (Eberhard, et al. 2025).
Furthermore, there is research documenting how imposing a common language can actually generate intense resistance, rather than creating a ‘unified and cohesive’ society (Lo Bianco 2016). This is partly because it sets up economic resources to flow disproportionately in favor of the official language (Kymlicka & Patten 2003). In addition, as Grillo (1989) points out, dominant languages are products of the dominant groups, whose standards come to be seen as universal, natural and self-evident. On this issue, scholars like Rosa and Flores (2017) note that the intertwined nature of language and race creates a linguistic hierarchy in which the languages and linguistic repertoires of non-White speakers are considered deficient. The imposition of this kind of linguistic hierarchy can only be divisive.
The positive effects of bi- and multilingualism on cognition, aging, and public health are well established (Alladi et al., 2013; Bialystok, 2011; Bialystok et al., 2016), and numerous studies have shown the positive social, emotional, and educational benefits of dual language programs and schools that promote and support the full linguistic repertoires of their students (Garcia & Wei, 2014; Nero & Ahmad, 2014). It is clear that a nation and its citizens are in fact strengthened by speaking many languages.
EO Statement #3: Speaking English not only opens doors economically, but it helps newcomers engage in their communities, participate in national traditions, and give back to our society.
Reply: “Official English” policies do not improve economic prospects for those who arrive in the US speaking another language, nor do they improve communication for those who live in multilingual communities.
Most people in the US speak English already, and residents that do not already speak it wish to learn it. In the latest US Census, English remains the most common language spoken at home in the United States, with 78% of census respondents speaking only English (Dietrich & Hernandez, 2022). In addition, many studies have revealed that not only do most immigrants already place a high value on learning English (Olsen 2010), the children of immigrants universally learn English through schools and in their communities (Parmon 2010). Many second-generation Americans relate to the experience of English being emphasized at home, by their parents and caregivers. It is very common for English use to be prioritized over the use of heritage languages in the home. Mandating English as an official language is a solution to a problem that does not exist: there is no evidence suggesting that English is under threat.
Instead, the ideological spillover of ‘Official English’ is likely to be pernicious. Language will be increasingly used as a source of social, political and economic control. Language planning efforts will stratify society even more than it already is (Flowers, 2021). Officializing English will embolden the English Only Movement in its efforts to eliminate bilingual programs, a move that will set children who speak another language at home back in their cognitive development, not “open doors economically” (Cummins 2021). It will also underscore and legalize the connections between “standard English” and upward mobility, connections that have long shown to be detrimental to speakers of “non-standard” Englishes (Baugh, 2003). Thus, it does not ‘help newcomers’ to make English official; instead it is likely to marginalize and stigmatize them.
EO Statement #4: Establishing English as the official language will not only streamline communication but also reinforce shared national values, and create a more cohesive and efficient society.
Reply: Supporting and promoting multilingualism makes a nation stronger, not weaker.
A key characteristic of modern ‘neo-nationalist movements’ (Eger & Valdez, 2017; McIntosh & McPherron, 2023) is the idea that the promotion of linguistic and cultural diversity is a threat to the “purity” of a nation’s people and identity (Wodak, 2021; Bergman (2022). This justification for establishing English as the official language of the United States through an Executive Order is an expression of this idea.
In fact, as we have outlined above, supporting and promoting multilingualism makes a nation stronger, not weaker—it improves cognition and health, strengthens communities and brings families together and strengthens our ability to participate as global citizens in a multilingual world. Mandating Official English will have exactly the opposite effect.
There was even a time in American history when citizens’ multilingualism was key to national security. In World Wars I and II, service members from Native American communities served as ‘Code Talkers’ — their own languages became the basis for an essentially unbreakable code used in radio communication (Smithsonian 2020). Their multilingualism enabled operations to go forward without fear of being compromised by the enemy.
A Call to Action: A Multilingual Society, not a Monolingual One
When this Executive Order is viewed in conjunction with other recent Executive Orders, including the January 20, 2025 Executive Order, “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” it appears designed in service of broader anti-immigrant goals, including the erasure of the history and culture of millions of people in the United States who are not monolingual English speakers. Previous attempts to create a single official language for the United States have all been rejected. We ask: if the United States has not needed an official tongue for more than 200 years, why would we need one now?
The LSA and its members stand firmly against the March 1 Executive Order, and we call on anyone concerned about the fallacies and exclusionary rhetoric found in the March 1 Executive Order to continue to support, protect, and promote multilingualism and linguistic diversity in the United States.
Acknowledgements
The development of this statement was led by Paul McPherron and Vaidehi Ramanathan, with additional input from Anne Curzan, Raffaella Folli, Margaret Speas and LSA officers Heidi Harley, Alicia Beckford Wassink, Marlyse Baptista, and Frederick J. Newmeyer, as well as LSA Executive Director Margaret Vitullo.
NOTE: this statement was originally published on March 7, 2023. It was updated on March 13, 2026 to make clearer the distinction between the statements of the Executive Order and the LSA responses, to acknowledge New York City as one of the most linguistically and culturally diverse cities in the world, to include a discussion of ASL, and to acknowledge the additional input of several additional linguists.
References
Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and rise of nationalism. Verso. Republished 2008.
Alladi, S., Bak, T. H., Duggirala, V., Surampudi, B., Shailaja, M., Shukla, A. K., Chaudhuri, J. R., & Kaul, S. (2013). Bilingualism delays age at onset of dementia, independent of education and immigration status. Neurology, 81(22), 1938–1944. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000436620.33155.a4
Baron, D. (1990). The English-only question: An official language for Americans? Yale University Press.
Bartgis, R. (2021, September 9). Constitution Day: Translating the Constitution. National Archives.Pieces of History. https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2021/09/09/constitution-day-translating-the-constitution/
Bergmann, E. (2020). Neo‐nationalism: The rise of nativist populism. Springer.
Baugh, J. (2003). Linguistic profiling. In S. Makoni, G. Smitherman, A. F. Ball, & A. K. Spears(Eds.), Black linguistics: Language, society, and politics in Africa and the Americas (pp. 155-168). Routledge.
Bialystok, E. (2011). Reshaping the mind: The benefits of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(4), 229–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025406
Bialystok, E., Abutalebi, J., Bak, T. H., Burke, D. M., & Kroll, J. F. (2016). Aging in two languages: Implications for public health. Ageing Research Reviews, 27, 56–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2016.03.003
Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/12/languages-we-speak-in-united-states.html
Crawford, J. (2013). Language and Legislation in the US. http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/langleg.htm
Crawford, J. (1990). Language freedom and restriction: A historical approach to the official language controversy. In J. Reyhner (Ed.), Effective language education practices and native language survival (pp. 9–22). Native American Language Issues.
Cummins, J. (2021). Rethinking the education of multilingual learners: A critical analysis of theoretical concepts. Multilingual Matters.
Dietrich, S., & Hernandez, E. (2022). Language use in the United States: 2019 (ACS-50). U.S.
Eger, M., & Valdez, S. (2015). Neo-nationalism in Western Europe. European Sociology Review, 31(1), 115-130. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcu087
Eberhard, David M., Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig (eds., 2025). Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Twenty-eighth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com.
Ferguson, C. and Heath, S. B. (1981). (eds). Language in the USA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flowers, K. S. (2021). Upscaling and downscaling: Negotiating scale in the English‐only movement. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 25(2), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12416
Flowers, K. S. (2024). Making English official: Writing and resisting local language policies. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009278058
García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism, and education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Grillo, R. D. (1989). Dominant languages: Language and hierarchy in Britain and France. Cambridge University Press.
Heath, S. B. (1976). A national language academy? Debate in the new nation. International Journal of Sociology, 11, 9–43. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1977.15.189.9
Heath, S. B. (1983) Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, D. (2009). Ethnography of language policy. Language Policy, 8(2), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-009-9136-9
Kymlicka, W., & Patten, A. (Eds.). (2003). Language rights and political theory. Oxford University Press.
Lo Bianco, J. (2016) Conflict, Language Rights, and Education: Building Peace by Solving Language Problems in Southeast Asia. Language Policy Research Network Brief.
McIntosh, K., & McPherron, P. (Eds.). (2023). Introduction: Teaching English in a time of resurgent nationalism [Special Issue]. TESOL Quarterly, 57(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3255
Nero, S., & Ahmad, D. (Eds.). (2014). Vernaculars in the classroom: Paradoxes and possibilities. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203598238
Olsen, L. (2010). Learning English, learning America: Immigrants in the center of a storm. Theory Into Practice, 39(4), 196–202. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3904_2
Parmon, E. (2010). Educating immigrant children: Bilingualism in America’s schools. Social Science Journal, 10(1), 65–69.
Patten, A., & Kymlicka, W. (2003). Introduction: Language rights and political theory: Context, issues, and approaches. In A. Patten & W. Kymlicka (Eds.), Language rights and political theory (pp. 1–51). Oxford University Press.
Rippley, L. (1976). The German-Americans. Twayne Publishers.
Rosa, J., & Flores, N. (2017). Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic Perspective. Language in Society, 46(5), 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404517000562
Smithsonian Institution (2020). Code Talkers. National Museum of the American Indian. Retrieved March 5, 2025, from https://americanindian.si.edu/static/why-we-serve/topics/code-talkers/
Trump, D. J. (2025). Executive Order on Designating English as the Official Language of the United States. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/designating-english-as-the-official-language-of-the-united-states/
Wiley, T., & Wright, W. (2004). Against the undertow: Language minority education policy and politics in the ‘age of accountability.’ Educational Policy, 18(1), 142-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904803260030
Wodak, R. (2021). The politics of fear: The shameless normalization of far-right discourse (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446270073