In a move that is bound to reignite debates over national identity, immigration, and inclusivity, US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order declaring English as the official language of the United States. This is a historic first as, despite the country’s 250-year history, the US has never had a national language, as is the case in India. While English is undoubtedly the dominant language in American life, this executive order is far from a neutral administrative decision.

It must be considered in the context of Trump’s broader political agenda, especially his steps to disassemble diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The question before us is not just about language but about the fabric of a multicultural and multilingual society and whether such action supports harmony or leads to division. Some people may consider the decision to make English the official language as a good step. The logic is that English is already the de facto language of government, law and business in the US. Supporters argue that making it a de jure language also would help promote national unity and streamline government functions. However, such a perspective overlooks the ulterior negative implications of this decision.

Advertisement

At its core, language is not just a means of communication; it is a marker of identity, history, and culture. The United States, a nation built by immigrants, is home to more than 350 languages, according to the US Census Bureau. Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Arabic are among the most spoken languages besides English. The decision to impose English as the official language sends a clear message: linguistic and cultural diversity is no longer welcome. This move does not occur in isolation. It aligns with Trump’s broader crackdown on DEI programmes, which were created to address historical inequities and ensure greater representation for minorities in education, employment, and governance. His administration’s aggressive stance – eliminating equity-related grants, contracts, and requiring federal contractors to disavow DEI initiatives – suggests that this executive order is not merely about language, but about erasing policies that acknowledge diversity as a strength.

Ironically, many of the earliest settlers who laid the foundation of the United States were non-English speakers. German, French, Dutch and indigenous languages flourished alongside English in colonial America. The unwillingness of past governments to execute an official language originated from the belief that America was unique specifically because it adapted diversity rather than enforcing uniformity. Even founding figures of the USA like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison never tried to impose English as the national language. The United States thrived for centuries without such a law because language assimilation occurred naturally over generations, without coercion. The assumption that an official language is necessary for national unity is therefore historically unfounded as evident from the situation in India which does not have a single official language but a total of 22 to respect the multilingual culture.

Moreover, multiple studies have shown that immigrants in the US overwhelmingly embrace English. According to research by the Pew Research Center, more than 90 per cent of second-generation immigrants speak English proficiently, and by the third generation, native languages often disappear entirely. If language assimilation is already occurring organically, what purpose does this order serve, if not to stigmatise linguistic minorities? Declaring English as the only official language could have farreaching consequences for millions of non-English speakers in the US. It may pave the way for restrictive policies, such as reducing the availability of government documents and public services.

Such measures could disproportionately affect Latino, Asian, and indigenous communities there, who already face fear of systemic barriers to equal participation in civic life. The economic implications of this move are also worth noting. The US economy benefits significantly from its multilingual workforce. Industries such as healthcare, education, tourism, and international trade depend much on employees who can communicate in multiple languages. An English-only policy could inadvertently undermine these sectors by discouraging multilingualism rather than embracing it as an asset. The debate over language policy is not unique to the United States. Many countries have grappled with similar questions, and their experiences offer valuable lessons which the US must consider. India, for instance, has a total of 22 officially recognised languages and over 1,600 dialects are spoken in different parts of the country.

Despite a huge linguistic diversity, English serves as a crucial link language alongside Hindi. Rather than enforcing a national language, India has adopted a pragmatic approach that allows multiple languages to coexist peacefully in governance, education, and daily life. This policy has helped maintain unity in a diverse nation, even as linguistic disputes occasionally flare up. In contrast, the countries that try imposing monolingualism often meet with backlash. In Canada, the imposition of English in historically French-speaking Quebec led to huge political tension, ultimately resulting in a bilingual national policy.

Similarly, in Spain, the suppression of Catalan and Basque languages under Francisco Franco’s regime fuelled resentment and separatist movements that persist to this day. Trump’s executive order will not be final on this issue. Legal challenges are almost certain, particularly if the order is used to restrict access to government services for non-English speakers. Civil rights groups, advocacy organisations, and pro-immigrant lawmakers are likely to push back against any measures that disproportionately harm minority communities. Outside the courtroom, the real trial will be whether American nationals will accept or negate the idea of a monolingual country.

The US has long prided itself on being a land of opportunity, where people from all backgrounds can contribute to society without being compelled to leave their identities. This order disagrees with that intent, substituting it with a narrow, exclusionary definition of American identity. Ultimately, the strength of a country is not determined by the language it mandates, but by the values it upholds. The United States must decide whether it will embrace the pluralism that has defined it for centuries, or retreat into a dividing vision that seeks to erase the very diversity that has made it great. The world, and history, will be watching.

(The writer is an advocate.)