One Nation, One Language?
Few events rival the Super Bowl halftime show in viewership or cultural impact. This year’s halftime show for Super Bowl XI was no different; with 128.2 million viewers of the live broadcast and millions more still counting, conversations surrounding Bad Bunny’s headlining show are unavoidable [1]. Unlike years past, an alternative “All-American Halftime Show” with supposedly “no agenda other than to celebrate faith, family, and freedom” was simultaneously aired by Turning Point USA [2][3]. The performers, however, repeatedly endorsed common conservative viewpoints, creating an ideological contrast with Bad Bunny implied to represent the political left. While Bad Bunny has publicly voiced his political opinions in the past, such as by denouncing ICE at the 2026 Grammys, politics have never been separate from sports [4][5].
So, what was different this year? Bad Bunny performed in Spanish. Despite being from Puerto Rico, which has been a US territory since 1898, Bad Bunny has received backlash from many conservatives, framing him as un-American [6]. Notably, Donald Trump complained on X that “nobody understands a word this guy is saying” and that the show was an “affront to the Greatness of America” [7].
On March 1st, 2025, Trump declared English as the official language of the United States in an executive order, citing goals to “reinforce shared national values” and “create a more cohesive and efficient society” as primary reasons for the action [8]. Controversies over Bad Bunny’s Spanish-language show present an opportunity to discuss the legal, social, and cultural consequences of declaring English the official language of the United States. To what extent are official-English policies constitutional? Additionally, do such symbolic policies truly promote national unity, or do they strengthen linguistic hierarchies, creating greater societal barriers and divisions? This article will explore how President Trump’s 2025 Executive Order (EO) 14224 has created a chilling effect that erodes Equal Protection, even though it can not legally override Title VI.
The halftime show friction reflects a long-standing English-superiority ideology in the US. In 1780, John Adams encouraged all Americans to learn English, claiming it would unify the nation and predicting that English would become “in the next and succeeding centuries, more generally the language of the world” [9]. This sentiment has remained prevalent throughout US history. As explained by professor and author Doris Warriner, “proficiency in English is considered one of the primary components of membership and often equated with patriotism, national identity, and a ‘rightful’ place in society” [10].
The US has existed with substantial linguistic diversity since its founding. The Constitution states no official language, and the First Amendment’s free speech and expression clauses protect multilingualism [11]. Despite this, education policies have favored the use of English throughout history. By the end of the nineteenth century, the Bureau of Indian Affairs enforced the use of English on Native Americans and others living in the Southwest territories [12]. During World War I, English increasingly became a sign of allegiance and nationalism as the US entered the conflict against Germany [13]. During this period, some states passed laws that prohibited the teaching of foreign languages [14]. In 1923, the Supreme Court’s decision in Meyer v. Nebraska held that a ban on German-language instruction violated substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment for parents to influence their children’s education and for teachers to teach [15]. Decades later, in 1971, the Supreme Court built on this precedent by unanimously ruling in Lau v. Nichols that it is unconstitutional for schools to teach solely in English without providing English-language support for students whose first language is not English [16]. This decision was made based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [17][18]. Although both Meyer and Lau affirm individual rights over national language conformity, movements for an official-English amendment have periodically reemerged, and members of Congress have introduced multiple English Language Amendments since the 1980s [19]. Although none were passed, the US citizenship test has had an English requirement since the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 [20].
More recently, EO 14224 designated English as the official language at the federal level for the first time [21]. While it is a symbolic action, the legal power of executive orders is limited because statutes supersede executive orders. EO 14224 does not override the anti-discrimination statutes of Title VI, invalidate local and state language access laws, nor require federal agencies to provide services only in English [22][23]. Instead, EO 14224 revokes an executive order issued by President Clinton that required federal agencies and other federal funding recipients to implement measures to ensure multilingual accessibility of their services for individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) [24][25]. In this way, EO 14224 increases the administrative discretion agencies have in how they are able to enforce Title VI. In effect, relying on a norm of agency deference, many federal agencies have followed the example and guidance of the Department of Justice to rescind their LEP policies and comply with EO 14224, including the General Services Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development [26][27][28]. While these changes are not legally required, the executive action bypasses Congress by weaponizing administrative discretion to narrow Title VI’s scope, signaling a shift toward reduced language-access policies and guidance.
What does this mean for minority communities and linguistic diversity in the US? A 2013 analysis of language used in 2005-2006 Congressional debates over the renewal of Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act found that representatives on both sides of the political aisle portrayed English proficiency as a central component of belonging and a necessary factor for economic success [29]. This dominant ideology of English superiority was supported by a 2023 TESOL ethnographic study that analyzed discourse and sociolinguistics in a mostly white Midwestern school district [30]. Researchers found that neo-nationalist rhetoric promoted by Donald Trump disproportionately impacted the physical and mental health of immigrant students and English Language Learners (ELLs), students with a first language other than English [31]. These findings show how ideologies promoted by the national government have consequences that extend further than the rule of law. Elite discourse around language, such as the framing of Bad Bunny as ideologically threatening because of his language, trickles down into schools, shaping health outcomes and identity formation.
This evidence of official-English policies and rhetoric placing disproportionate burdens on linguistic minorities raises constitutional questions surrounding potential violations of the Equal Protection Clause and failures of the rational basis test when they harm, rather than unify, citizens. Policies that promote the idea that English is superior deepen societal divisions by restricting access to services, education, and civic participation. Additionally, the declaration of English as the national language sends an exclusionary message of what it means to be an American. To uphold the text and spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States must recognize that linguistic diversity is not merely a cultural asset, but a protected liberty interest that executive fiat cannot constitutionally erase.
Edited by Alix Sztejman
Endnotes
[1] Dan Shanoff and Andrew Marchand, “Super Bowl LX draws 124.9 million viewers, Bad Bunny 128.2 million” (New York Times 2026), online at https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7036613/2026/02/10/super-bowl-ratings-nfl-nbc-bad-bunny/ (visited February 28, 2026).
[2] “The All-American Halftime Show by Turning Point USA Blasts Bad Bunny at NFL Super Bowl LX” (Magno News 2026), online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3EXcIYqKkI (visited February 28, 2026).
[3] Jordy Fee-Platt, “Turning Point USA’s All-American Halftime Show draws 6.1M concurrent viewers on YouTube” (New York Times 2026), online at https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7031946/2026/02/08/turning-point-usa-halftime-show-pete-hegseth/ (visited February 28, 2026).
[4] Sandra Gonzalez and Alli Rosenbloom, “Bad Bunny uses Grammy Award win to protest ICE” (CNN 2026), online at https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/01/entertainment/bad-bunny-grammys-speech-ice (visited February 28, 2026).
[5] Alli Rosenbloom, Lisa Respers France, and Brook Joyner, “Super Bowl halftime performers who got political way before Bad Bunny” (CNN 2026), online at https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/06/entertainment/gallery/super-bowl-halftime-performers-who-got-political-way-before-bad-bunny (visited February 28, 2026).
[6] “Puerto Rico” (History, Art & Archives, U.S. House of Representatives n.d.), online at https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/HAIC/Historical-Essays/Foreign-Domestic/Puerto-Rico/ (visited February 28, 2026).
[7] Nadine El-Bawab, “Trump calls Bad Bunny's Super Bowl halftime show a 'slap in the face to our country'” (ABC News 2026) online at https://abcnews.com/US/trump-calls-bad-bunnys-super-bowl-halftime-show/story?id=129980124 (visited February 28, 2026).
[8] “Designating English as the Official Language of The United States” (The White House 2026), online at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/designating-english-as-the-official-language-of-the-united-states/ (visited March 2, 2026).
[9] “Do you speak American? – Official American” (PBS 2005), online at https://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/officialamerican/ (visited January 30, 2026).
[10] Warriner, Doris, “Language Learning and the Politics of Belonging: Sudanese Women Refugees Becoming and Being‘American,’” 38.4 Anthropology & education quarterly 343,344 (2008).
[11] US Const amend I.
[12] David Nieto, “A Brief History of Bilingual Education in the United States,” Perspectives on Urban Education 61, 62 (2009) .
[13] Dennis Baron, “America’s War on Language” (University of Illinois 2014), online at https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/9114/1110945133#:~:text=In%20April%2C%201917%2C%20the%20United,in%20US%20schools%20as%20well (visited March 3, 2026).
[14] Elliot L. Judd, “The English Language Amendment: A Case Study on Language and Politics,” 21 TESOL Quarterly 113 (1987).
[15] Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
[16] Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
[17] US Const Amend XIV
[18] Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, 42 USC § 2000d (1964).
[19] National Immigration Forum, “Designating English as the Official Language: Explainer” (Aug 4, 2025), online at https://forumtogether.org/article/designating-english-as-the-official-language-explainer/ (visited Mar 5, 2026).
[20] Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, 8 USC § 1324a (1986).
[21] National Immigration Forum, “Designating English as the Official Language.”
[22] National Immigration Forum, “Designating English as the Official Language.”
[23] Culture and Language Center, “Language Access Laws,” Culture and Language Center, online at https://cultureandlanguage.net/ccc-resources/language-access-laws/. (visited Mar 5, 2026).
[24] National Immigration Forum, “Designating English as the Official Language.”
[25] Executive Order 14224, Designating English as the Official Language of the United States, 90 Fed. Reg. 11363 (Mar. 1, 2025), available via Federal Register and published online (visited Mar 5, 2026).
[26] Pamela Bondi, Memorandum for All Federal Agencies: Implementation of Executive Order No. 14,224: Designating English as the Official Language of the United States of America (U.S. Department of Justice July 14, 2025), online at https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1407776/dl?inline=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery (visited Mar 5, 2026).
[27] U.S. General Services Administration, “Language Services Policy,” GSA Directives Library (U.S. General Services Administration), online at https://www.gsa.gov/directives-library/language-access-plan?utm_source=chatgpt.com (visited Mar 5, 2026).
[28] Shelli Bakken, “HUD to Remove Translated Documents in New English-Only Policy,” LeadingAge Minnesota, online at https://www.leadingagemn.org/news/hud-to-remove-translated-documents-in-new-english-only-policy? (visited Mar 5, 2026).
[29] Nicoleta C. Subtirelu, “‘English… it’s part of our blood’: Ideologies of Language and Nation in United States Congressional Discourse,” 17 Journal of Sociolinguistics 37, 59 (2013), online at https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12016 (visited Mar 5, 2026).
[30] Caroline Stephens, “‘This Is Our Country, Too’: Embodied Experiences of and Resistance to Neo-Nationalism in a Midwest School District,” 57 TESOL Quarterly 916, 917 (2023), online at https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3246 (visited Mar 5, 2026).
[31] Stephens, “Our Country,” 941.