From Vendors to Guardians

We Knew This Was Coming, Sort Of

My 2023 article warned that language discrimination was being normalized in several ways:

• Minor children were interpreting legal contracts.
• Bilingualism was being romanticized, while access to government services was being restricted or denied.
• LEP people were largely unaware of their rights and didn’t have an organized identity around which to rally (there was no multilingual movement).

And now, with EO 14224 in place, the consequences are clear: Without stronger legal protections at the federal, state, and local level, LEP individuals will fall through the cracks of every critical institution in American life.

Overcoming Imposter Syndrome in Advocacy

I didn’t begin my journey as an advocate. I started out, like many of you, as an interpreter focused on the mechanics of communication, craft of language, and precision of meaning. I believed in the power of words, but for a long time, I didn’t see myself as someone who could shape policy or change minds at scale.

That changed the first time I attended Language Advocacy Day in Washington D.C., organized by the Joint National Committee for Languages – National Council for Languages and International Studies (JNCL-NCLIS). I arrived eager, passionate, and prepared to advocate for the people I served every day, those who navigate our systems without English fluency and who are so often overlooked in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. But, instead of a voice for them, what I heard was silence.

The advocates around me were brilliant, but only focused on protecting foreign language education and global learning programs. No one was talking about the 26 million LEP individuals in our country whose lives and liberties are in jeopardy when interpreters are not present in hospitals, courtrooms, or schools. These 26 million voices were absent from the conversations in Washington D.C., as they often are in DEI initiatives, where language is routinely treated as a footnote to intersectionality rather than a central axis of access. (And now, of course, DEI has become taboo, multilingualism branded un-American, and inclusion dismissed as a radical idea.)

No one in that room was asking for federal investment in language access. I remember being surrounded by powerful voices who understood the value of learning languages, but not the leap between being bilingual and being a professional interpreter. They didn’t see how critical our profession is to making equity and inclusion real. I felt invisible. But I wasn’t discouraged. My voice as an advocate was not extinguished. Instead, it was ignited.

Finding My Voice — and a Community

Upon joining the Association of Language Companies (ALC) and participating in its advocacy day since its inception in 2020, I’ve observed an evolution. In recent years, under the incredible leadership of advocates like our colleague Bill Rivers, we’ve more openly addressed language access, aligning discussions with the core of our profession. In that virtual room, advocating for the language industry and language access, for the first time, I didn’t feel like a lone voice. I felt like I was part of a movement.

In March 2024 and in our most recent On the Hill advocacy day, ALC advocacy efforts achieved the following:

• $4 million in federal funds to inform LEP individuals about their rights,
• Revisions to federal civil rights regulations implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and
• An elevated image of our industry as essential to equity, not just economics.

Next, we must consider advocating for comprehensive federal language access legislation, like the Americans ith Disabilities Act (ADA), a law that enshrines language access as a fundamental right. It might seem counterintuitive to do this in the current political landscape, when anything that seems to promote DEI has been demonized and anything that highlights the immigrants and slaves who formed the country’s foundation seems, paradoxically, un-American. Like the colonists facing a tyrannical ruler who was restricting people’s “unalienable rights,” this is the moment to advocate for people’s language rights.

A Legal and Moral Imperative

In April, this magazine published an interview with Michael Mulé from the US Department of Justice. He reminded us that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires all federally funded programs to provide meaningful access to people with LEP. These aren’t suggestions — they’re legal mandates grounded in our national values.

Mulé’s warning is especially urgent now. EO 14224 does not reference Title VI or similar laws, because it cannot undo the protections those civil rights laws created for every person in the US, no matter what language they speak. EO 14224 doesn’t just revoke EO 13166 — it symbolically declares that English is the only language that matters. It signals to millions of people, “If you can’t speak English, you don’t belong here.”

That message is un-American. And it is unacceptable.

A Global Crisis and Responsibility

While EO 14224 targets US protections, language injustice is not confined to any one nation. Worldwide, linguistic minorities face systemic exclusion:

• In humanitarian crises and national disasters where interpreters are absent,
• In education systems where bilingual students are penalized or isolated, and
• In legal systems where verdicts are rendered without participants’ comprehension.

As the global language industry surpasses $75 billion, it is unconscionable that we remain on the sidelines of this global equity crisis. We are the only profession whose entire purpose is to break language barriers. And yet we recognize that the largest barriers are not those of language, but rather narrow-mindedness and exclusionary policies. We need to continue to challenge policies that undermine effective communication, access, and inclusion.

What LSPs Must Do Now

1. Publicly Oppose EO 14224

I’ve heard from so many in our field, “I don’t want to get political.” But language access is not politics — it’s people, culture, and identity. It’s ethics, and it’s survival. Now is the time to publicly oppose EO 14224 and all efforts to roll back language rights. Let’s show the world that we are not just vendors, we are defenders.

LSPs, particularly those operating in the US, should issue formal statements opposing the repeal of EO 13166 and the establishment of English-only policies. Silence may be interpreted as acquiescence; therefore, it is imperative to articulate a clear stance. Public opposition underscores the industry’s commitment to linguistic diversity and the rights of people with LEP.

2. Educate Clients and Communities

Many stakeholders — including public service professionals such as doctors, nurses, educators, and social workers — may be unaware of the protections that have been rescinded. LSPs must proactively fill this information void by providing clear guidance and practical solutions grounded in ethics and equity. This responsibility extends to independent interpreters, who should inform LEP clients of their longstanding right to effective communication in public services. By becoming authoritative sources on language access, we empower our clients and communities to navigate these changes effectively.​

It’s crucial to recognize that many public service professionals already have ethical obligations to communicate effectively with the communities they serve:​

• Nurses: The American Nurses Association’s Code of Ethics emphasizes that nurses must practice with compassion and respect for the inherent dignity, worth, and unique attributes of every person, which includes effective communication. ​
• Pharmacists: The American Pharmacists Association’s Code of Ethics states that pharmacists must communicate with patients in terms that are understandable, respecting personal and cultural differences. ​
• Social Workers: The National Association of Social Workers’ standards highlight the ethical obligation to address health disparities by educating colleagues, the media, allied professionals, decision-makers, and other stakeholders on the impact of health disparities and unequal access to health services.
• Doctors: The American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics underscores the importance of effective communication between physicians and their patients. It emphasizes that patients have the right to receive comprehensive information and to ask questions about recommended treatments, enabling them to make well-considered decisions regarding their care. This ethical obligation ensures that patients are fully informed participants in their healthcare decisions.
• ​Attorneys: The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically the “Rule on Communications,” mandate that attorneys must promptly inform clients of decisions requiring their informed consent, consult about the means to achieve client objectives, keep clients reasonably informed about case status, and comply with reasonable requests for information. These obligations ensure that clients can actively and effectively participate in their legal representation. ​

3. Advocate for Language Access Policies

While federal agency policies may be shifting, state and local governments must follow Title VI and related laws, and they can enact measures to protect language access. LSPs should collaborate with advocacy groups to promote legislation that upholds and expands language services at state and regional levels. Engaging with policymakers, participating in public forums, and supporting grassroots initiatives can influence positive change. ​