PolicyBrief
H.R. 2453
119th CongressMar 27th 2025
To continue Executive Order 14224 in effect indefinitely.
IN COMMITTEE

This bill would make the executive order designating English as the official language of the U.S. permanent.

Mariannette Miller-Meeks
R

Mariannette Miller-Meeks

Representative

IA-1

LEGISLATION

Legislation Aims to Lock In English as Official U.S. Language Indefinitely Via Executive Order 14224

This bill proposes a straightforward but significant change: making Executive Order 14224 permanent. Section 1 explicitly states this EO, which designates English as the official language of the United States, along with any related rules, would stay in effect indefinitely, rather than being subject to change by future administrations.

Locking in the Language

So, what does designating English as the 'official' language actually mean in practice? Executive Order 14224 itself sets this standard. By making this order permanent, this legislation aims to solidify English's status in all governmental functions. The text is clear (low vagueness here) – it intends to keep this specific EO and its associated regulations on the books for good. This isn't about a temporary policy; it's about embedding it into the long-term framework of how the government operates.

Ripple Effects on Access and Daily Life

The real-world impact hinges on how 'official language' status gets interpreted and applied across government agencies. While the bill itself is just one sentence, making EO 14224 permanent could have tangible consequences. Think about accessing essential services: Will multilingual support at the Social Security office, DMV, or in emergency communications be reduced or eliminated? For individuals with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) – maybe your neighbor who primarily speaks Spanish or a coworker navigating citizenship paperwork in Vietnamese – this could create significant hurdles (Access_Limitation concern). There's a real possibility this could disproportionately affect immigrant communities and non-English speakers (Disproportionate_Impact concern), potentially limiting their ability to interact with government, understand their rights, or access benefits they're entitled to (Rights_Restriction concern). While proponents might argue this promotes unity or efficiency, the practical effect could be exclusion for those not fluent in English.