U.S. Government Agencies Eliminating Spanish Language Services Is Self-Inflicted Harm

by Richard Seifman – Former World Bank Senior Health Advisor and U.S. Senior Foreign Service Officer

July 29, 2025

The United States has huge foreign-born and first-generation citizens and immigrant populations, legal and otherwise, who face immense challenges in complying with the rules and regulations of the federal government. For many years, assistance has been funded and supported to make these herculean tasks more doable for them. That has changed, and with it, the country’s reputation is diminishing. 

One example is requiring fluency in English. Let me explain.

On March 1, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 13166, which designated English as the United States’ official language. This Executive Order is no longer theoretically in effect, and existing federal civil rights laws and regulations require language access for individuals with limited English proficiency in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. 

Nonetheless, numerous federal entities are pursuing policies prioritizing English as the only language, effectively reducing or eliminating Spanish. In the past four months, these entities have included:

• The Social Security Administration (SSA): Reduced language services.
• The Justice Department (DOJ) issued guidance to federal agencies to consider English-only services when lawful and to redirect funds towards English education.
• The White House: Removed the Spanish-language version of its website.
• The National Weather Service (NWS): Ceased translating emergency warnings into non-English languages due to an expired contract.
• The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA): Frozen funding, impacting the ability of organizations to provide mental health services in multiple languages. 
• U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services cancelled a contract for translation capacity in Spanish. Employees were directed to discontinue any call when they are not fluent in the caller’s language. “Employees will not integrate the third-party vendor into the call to provide translation, nor will they transfer calls to other employees who may speak the caller’s language. 

Most recently, as a result of guidance from U.S. Attorney General Bondi, the Treasury Department notified the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that it needs to reevaluate its “Commitment to assist non-English speaking taxpayers understand their tax obligations,” a policy that currently requires it to serve “those who lack a full command of the English language.”

Should the IRS proceed with implementing this decision, it would create significant and far-reaching hurdles and harm, including possible legal vulnerability, affecting the lives of millions of American citizens and noncitizens who live and work in the country and rely on these services to navigate legal, financial, and social systems.

Understanding the Context 

The United States has one of the largest Spanish-speaking populations in the world, with approximately 41 million people speaking Spanish at home, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Approximately 15.7 million Latinos in the United States who speak Spanish at home do not speak English proficiently, meaning they speak English “less than very well” or not at all, according to Pew Research Center. (This does not include non-citizens or those with uncertain immigration status.)

This is a growing demographic; providing language services is more crucial than ever. 

The Role of Language Services 

Language services ensure that non-English speakers have access to essential information and services. 

For federal agencies, providing such services in Spanish is highly important in fulfilling their mission to serve the public, and for the IRS, in collecting taxes effectively. These include tax forms, guidance, and customer support for the IRS. 

When the IRS and other agencies eliminate language services, they create barriers that hinder effective communication, equal access, and compliance with the law by those who want to comply. 

Effects of Service Elimination

There are various negative consequences to failing to provide such services:

• Access to Information: The immediate impact of eliminating Spanish services is the lack of access to vital information. Tax filing, legal rights, social services, and healthcare information become challenging for Spanish speakers to navigate. This could result in failure to pay taxes, loss of benefits, and loss of legal rights. 
• Increased Marginality: Reduced access to government services exacerbates the marginalization of Spanish-speaking communities. This can lead to feelings of exclusion, low trust in government, and a reluctance to seek assistance when needed. 
• Economic Impact: Language barriers can hinder economic mobility. Spanish speakers may struggle with understanding tax compliance, which can affect their financial status and lead to penalties. Businesses that serve Spanish-speaking clients may also suffer from decreased economic activity. 
• Health Outcomes: For health care, language services are critical. When access to health information is compromised, Spanish speakers are likely to miss out on vital health resources, leading to poorer health outcomes. They may not understand medical instructions or available health services. And when there is an endemic or epidemic disease, this potentially affects everyone. 
• Legal Consequences: Legal systems often require individuals to understand their rights and responsibilities. A lack of language services hinders Spanish speakers in dealing with legal matters, preventing them from effectively defending their rights in court or seeking justice. 

Support From Sources Other than the Federal Government 

Eliminating such federally supplied services means looking elsewhere, and someorganizations, to an extent, fill the vacuum left by reducing or eliminating federal support. 

One example is the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), which was created in 1977 as a national organization providing human services, community organization, and advocacy to assist, inter alia, Latino and immigrant communities.

CASA and other such organizations provide: 

• Advocacy and Activism: Spanish-speaking communities, advocacy groups, and non-profits like CASA mobilize constituents to press to reinstate these services. This includes organizing campaigns, contacting legislators, and raising awareness of the issue. 
• Local Initiatives: Counties, cities, faith-based organizations, and other local groups can partially help fill the gaps left by federal agencies. Their work includes offering translation services and training community members to assist others in navigating federal services. 
• Multi-partner Collaboration: State and local governments, nonprofits, and community organizations work together to create programs designed to help Spanish speakers access critical services. 

In sum, these are the instruments in a democracy that protect and provide support for the less fortunate and more vulnerable. And while they are invaluable in assisting these vulnerable populations, they cannot fully substitute for the federal government.

Language Services Benefits Outweigh any Costs for the U.S. Government

Despite the work of other organizations, the elimination of Spanish language services by U.S. federal government agencies poses a significant handicap to millions of Spanish-speaking individuals. 

They need access to information essential for their economic mobility, health outcomes, and legal rights, which are all jeopardized without such support, fostering exclusion and marginalization. 

The costs of providing such services are minimal and assuredly so, compared to the direct and indirect benefits.

Further, depriving essential language services to roughly 13% of the population affects how other countries, particularly in the Western Hemisphere but also worldwide, view the United States and its treatment of those who come or live in the country. 

Decency and fairness are principles most Americans hold out as what makes the country “exceptional.” The federal system needs to be reminded and embrace such values now.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

This article was originally published on IMPAKTER. Read the original article.