logo
Native languages should be spoken and preserved, tribes say after Trump's 'English' order

Native languages should be spoken and preserved, tribes say after Trump's 'English' order

Yahoo07-03-2025
As Native language programs flourish in classrooms, Indian centers, tribal meeting rooms and online, President Donald Trump issued an executive order over the weekend declaring English would be the official language of the U.S.
Trump also rescinded a 25-year-old order that increased services to people with limited English proficiency and further enforced Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which among other provisions, forbids discrimination against people whose English skills aren't proficient.
What's unclear is if Trump can enforce his order in Indian Country, where federally recognized tribes have a government-to-government relationship and federal law protects Native language use and instruction.
Faced with the risk that Native languages could fade as elders pass on, tribes are trying to preserve their words to keep their tongues alive. The significance of preserving Indigenous languages often goes beyond culture or history, such as when a group of Navajo speakers played a role in helping the U.S. win World War II.
For many Native people, the order created confusion, said Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cázares-Kelly.
"It is taking a stance without really any teeth behind it," she said. "So it's essentially saying this is optional for people, which is not how our government operates or should operate."
The order also revived memories of failed federal policies when Indigenous languages were banned and children caught speaking their mother tongues in federal boarding schools were punished and often beaten.
Services in the city: Phoenix Indian Center moves to bigger quarters after selling its longtime building
Native languages within the U.S. border account for about 245 out of more than 500 languages spoken on the North American continent, according to the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian.
The federal government attempted to eradicate Native languages by instituting English-only instruction in government- and religious-run schools, including boarding schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, beginning in 1887. That directive also banned any tribe's language from being spoken on school grounds.
'The Government has entered upon the great work of educating and citizenizing the Indians and establishing them upon homesteads,' said Commissioner of Indian Affairs J. D. C. Atkins, who issued the language order.
For more than 100 years beginning in the late 19th century, Native children as young as four were removed from their homes and sent to government- or religious-run boarding schools designed to extinguish their languages, cultures and tribal identities. The goal: assimilate tribes into mainstream society and eliminate the government's trust responsibilities to tribes as listed in treaties, executive orders and legislation.
An Interior Department investigation, with support from the National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition, identified 417 federal Indian boarding schools operating on 451 sites across 37 states, or then-territories, between 1819 and 1969. That included 22 schools in Alaska and seven in Hawaii. The investigation didn't include the estimated 1,025 religious or private schools.
The 1887 order, which was in effect for about 50 years, resulted in tribal kids being punished, sometimes brutally, for the "infraction" of speaking their native tongues.
During a fact-finding meeting in the Gila River Indian Community in 2023 held by Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, one woman said her aunt's tongue had been split after a clothespin was put on it for being caught speaking O'odham.
In 2024, then-President Joe Biden formally apologized to tribes for the boarding school program and the intergenerational abuses, including language suppression, that they caused in Indian Country.
Fact-finding tour: Interior Secretary Deb Haaland hears from Indian boarding school survivors in Arizona
In 2015, the Administration for Native Americans, an agency housed within the Department of Health and Human Services, reported 65 Native languages were extinct and another 75 were under threat in the nation.
Federal laws affirm the right of tribal member students to receive education in their Native languages and of Indigenous peoples to use their languages without fear of punishment. The Native American Languages Act protects the rights and freedom of Native people to use, practice and develop Native languages. It also enables tribal language instruction in federally funded schools and recognizes the rights of states, territories and other U.S. lands to make Native languages official as well as other such provisions.
The Esther Martinez Native American Languages Preservation Act of 2006 authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make three-year grants for educational Native American language nests such as immersion schools, survival schools and restoration programs.
Cázares-Kelly is a citizen of the Tohono O'odham Nation and works with a group, Democracy Rising, to empower women of color leaders and officials. She said she will conduct business as usual, based on federal law.
"The people are protected by certain laws protecting your voting rights and ensuring that you can understand the ballot process," she said. "The voter registration forms and other voting materials are protected by law."
That law is particularly needed in Pima County, she said, a "border county," where at least 26% of the population are Hispanic speakers, as well as O'odham and Yaqui speakers.
Although recent censuses found few Native people need translation services, Cázares-Kelly said she keeps tribal and Spanish language interpreters on hand to help voters exercise what she called the fundamental rights of citizens.
At least three states — Hawai'i, Alaska and South Dakota — have made one or more Native languages official. Hawai'i enshrined the Hawaiian language as one of its two official languages in its constitution in 1978.
Arizona voters approved a proposition mandating English only in public school education, with English learners placed into immersion programs in 2000. Then-Arizona Attorney General Janet Napolitano said Native kids attending public schools on "the Reservation or elsewhere" could be taught Native languages and cultures, citing tribal sovereignty and federal law.
Fortunately for the nation, some Native people had never lost their languages. During World War II, members from 15 tribes joined special units using their native tongue to confound enemy troops. The most famous of them: Navajo Code Talkers.
About 300 young Navajo men created special terms in Diné Bizaad, or the Navajo language, to relay military equipment or troop movements. Their communications, never broken by the Japanese in the Pacific Theater, were acknowledged to play a pivotal role in winning the war.
'Were it not for the Navajos, the Marines would never have taken Iwo Jima,' Marine Division signal officer Major Howard Connor said.
Tribes and organizations serving Indigenous peoples have taken advantage of funding from the Administration for Native Americans to open or sustain language instruction both on and off tribal lands.
To keep that part of tribal heritage alive, the Phoenix Indian Center offers free language classes in both Diné and O'odham, funded by federal grants.
"Our language is an important part of who we are," said Phoenix Indian Center's CEO Jolyana Begay-Kroupa, a Navajo Nation member. "Just speaking my four clans in Navajo is beautiful." And, she said, many terms delineated in Indigenous languages, including Navajo, aren't translatable into English.
Preserving languages is also an important part of tribal resilience even in the face of barriers to preserving languages and cultures, said Begay-Kroupa, who called the executive order "divisive."
"It's a way to maintain our cultures," she said. "Our languages provide storytelling lessons given to us. It's beautiful."
The Administration for Native Americans told The Arizona Republic there are no interruptions to funding for the agency's language programs.
'Diné bizaad': After council vote, Navajo is now the official language of the Navajo Nation
The leader of the nation's largest Indigenous tribe affirmed the value of using and preserving Native languages.
"Diné Bizaad is power. Our language is more than words — it is our connection to our ancestors, our teachings, and our future," Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren said. In December, Nygren signed legislation and an executive order officially reaffirming Diné Bizaad as the official language of the Navajo Nation.
"As a sovereign nation within the United States, we have the right to pass laws that protect and strengthen our identity, culture, and language," Nygren said.
Nygren and the Navajo Division for Children and Family Services launched a Diné Bizaad literacy campaign. The program will focus on preserving family stories through books written in Diné.
And, Nygren said, the nation holds free online lessons in Navajo on Facebook and YouTube every Wednesday at noon, featuring Diné language expert Peter Thomas.
Begay-Kroupa also said that technology is increasingly used for teaching Indigenous languages. The Indian center uses online tools like Zoom to support language learning.
In the Verde Valley, the Yavapai-Apache Nation went a few steps further. The 2,700-member tribe created a comprehensive language program in 2023 to preserve and sustain its two languages. Elders worked with The Language Conservancy, a nonprofit that works to preserve the world's endangered languages, to create a mobile database, picture books and a phone app that features words in the Wipupka-Tolkapaya Yavapai and Dil'zhe'e Apache dialects common to the two peoples of the region.
"What a boring place it would be if we all spoke, ate and did the same things," Begay-Kroupa said. "There's no one language that supersedes all on Turtle Island."
"Our words carry the wisdom of our ancestors, and through them, we are building a stronger future," Nygren said. "We will continue to defend and promote Diné Bizaad's use for generations to come."
Debra Krol reports on Indigenous communities at the confluence of climate, culture and commerce in Arizona and the Intermountain West. Reach Krol at debra.krol@azcentral.com. Follow her on X, formerly Twitter @debkrol.
Coverage of Indigenous issues at the intersection of climate, culture and commerce is supported by the Catena Foundation.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Tribes say Native languages should be spoken despite Trump's English order
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

New Mexico's governor called in the state's National Guard to address crime issues. Here's how they're being used
New Mexico's governor called in the state's National Guard to address crime issues. Here's how they're being used

CNN

time26 minutes ago

  • CNN

New Mexico's governor called in the state's National Guard to address crime issues. Here's how they're being used

Federal agencies US military Donald TrumpFacebookTweetLink Follow In New Mexico's most populous city, National Guard troops are listening to the police dispatch calls, monitoring traffic cameras and helping to secure crime scene perimeters, tasks not usually part of the job. The New Mexico National Guard is in Albuquerque to help counter what officials have called a surge in crime, but unlike the recent deployment of troops in military fatigues by the federal government in the nation's capital and earlier in Los Angeles amid protests over immigration enforcement, the state's polo-shirted Guard troops were ordered in by the Democratic governor. And last week, New Mexico's governor declared a state of emergency in other parts of the state, which gives her the discretion to mobilize more troops. Here's how a National Guard deployment is playing out in New Mexico and why it matters. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's state of emergency order issued for Rio Arriba County, the city of Española and area pueblos, was made at the request of the local governments, she said. The Albuquerque deployment of 60 to 70 troops came after an emergency request from the city's police department citing the 'fentanyl epidemic and rising violent juvenile crime as critical issues requiring immediate intervention.' The new declaration is aimed at helping local police respond to a 'significant surge' in violent crime, drug trafficking and public safety threats that have 'overwhelmed local resources.' Rio Arriba County has the highest overdose death rate in the state, the governor's news release said. The troops are helping police with non-law enforcement duties and are not armed, will not make arrests, detain anyone, use force or engage in any immigration-related activities, the city said. 'We understand there are concerns based on what is taking place in other parts of the country, and we want to assure the public that here in Albuquerque, the Guard's role is clearly defined, and focused on support without enforcement,' Police Chief Harold Medina said in a June news release. CNN has contacted the Albuquerque Police Department and the New Mexico National Guard about whether the deployment has been effective but did not receive a response. 'There is no question why the NM National Guard is helping out,' New Mexico National Guard spokesman Hank Minitrez said in a June Facebook post. The post described troops working behind the scenes in police offices, and conducting traffic management and manning perimeters around crime scenes when necessary. Albuquerque officials said last month they saw 'success with targeted resources' in the city's downtown. Shootings are down 20% this year compared with 2024, the city said in a news release, a figure that tracks with data provided to CNN by the governor's office. Grisham, a Democrat, criticized President Donald Trump's deployment of 800 troops in Washington, DC, as 'executive overreach' and said the contrast 'couldn't be clearer' between her state's usage of the National Guard and that of Trump's. The DC National Guard reports only to the president, while a governor acts as the 'commander in chief' of their state's troops and police agencies. Trump has suggested he could do the same in other major Democratic-led cities despite their leaders not asking for help. Meanwhile on the West Coast, questions are still lingering in a court case over the president's deployment of troops to Los Angeles in June as dramatic protests unfolded over immigration enforcement in parts of the city. The visual contrast between the troops in New Mexico and those sent to LA and the capital shows a difference in approach and intent. Grisham's office said the 'key difference' between her deployment of troops and Trump's is her order was in response to direct requests from local communities. 'While President Trump uses the National Guard to trample local leadership, New Mexico brings together local and state governments to make our communities genuinely safer,' she said. California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the federal intervention in his state 'purposely inflammatory.' Washington, DC, Attorney General Brian Schwalb called the president's actions unnecessary and pointed out violent crime in the district reached 30-year lows last year. Trump said he was going to 'look at' taking action in Chicago, New York and Los Angeles because of their crime rates when he announced his plans to take control of DC's police department this week. It is not clear what specifically Trump wants to do in other cities. New York, Los Angeles and Chicago have all seen a sustained decline in crime so far this year, according to a mid-year report from the independent nonpartisan Council on Criminal Justice. It's a 'dangerous precedent' for the federal government to start deploying troops to deal with local and state policing matters, as they are historically used for crowd control, protecting federal property and federal workers, or responding to a natural disaster, according to Jeffrey Swartz, a former National Guard member and professor emeritus at Cooley Law School. The courts in California have yet to address a claim at the center of the case brought by Newsom to block Trump's deployment of troops in the city: whether the troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a 19th century law prohibiting the use of the US military for domestic law enforcement. The three-day trial concluded last week, but the judge did not say when he will rule. 'When the president nationalizes a unit or a state National Guard, they now fall under the Posse Comitatus Act saying they are not allowed to be used for civil policing,' said Swartz. 'He cannot authorize federal troops to make arrests. That is solely within the power of the governor.' The National Guard can, however, take someone into custody under circumstances where there's a danger to federal property or federal officers, he added. The act reserves law enforcement functions to the states, but its language is short, which 'lends itself to vagueness and argumentation,' said David Shapiro, lecturer at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Swartz said National Guardsmen 'don't like the idea of being on the streets and being put in a position where they might have to use force against fellow citizens.' 'These people are citizen soldiers, not full-time. They have jobs. They have families,' he said. 'They signed up to protect the country against external threats, not internal ones.'

Rubio says peace agreement "a long ways off" after Putin summit
Rubio says peace agreement "a long ways off" after Putin summit

Axios

time27 minutes ago

  • Axios

Rubio says peace agreement "a long ways off" after Putin summit

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday that "we're not at the precipice" of a peace agreement after President Trump's Alaska summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin ended without a deal on Russia's war in Ukraine. The big picture: Trump, who Axios previously reported set a ceasefire as the goal of the talks, said "we didn't get there" after the meeting. Rubio on Sunday said both sides would have to make concessions, but refused to name any that Putin agreed to. Now, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, joined by several European leaders, will travel to Washington for a potentially difficult meeting with Trump on Monday. Driving the news: Rubio, who made appearances across the Sunday political show lineup, told ABC's Martha Raddatz a ceasefire was not the aim, arguing, "You're not going to reach a ceasefire or peace agreement in a meeting" without Ukraine present. If an agreement isn't reached, Rubio said, there will be consequences — but he emphasized the administration is trying to avoid such measures. Late last month, Trump threatened to shorten Putin's deadline to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine or face heavy sanctions, which he said would include "secondary sanctions and tariffs." Yes, but: Rubio on Sunday argued that if the U.S. levies additional sanctions, the "talking stops." "If this morning the president woke up and said, 'I'm putting these terrible ... strong sanctions on Russia,' that's fine — [it] may make people feel good for a couple hours," he said on Fox's "Sunday Morning Futures." "But here's what you're basically saying ... talks are over for the foreseeable future." He reiterated that view on NBC's "Meet the Press," saying that he doesn't believe new sanctions would force Putin to accept a ceasefire. "We may very well wind up in that place," he said of new sanctions. "I hope not. Because that means that peace talks failed." The other side: Democrats on Sunday blasted the president over the meeting, which began with a red carpet rollout, and denounced the lack of immediate consequences for Russia. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) described the summit as a "great day for Russia" in an interview with NBC's Kristen Welker, saying Putin left with "his photo op with zero commitments made and zero consequences." His Democratic colleague, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), said on ABC's "This Week" that Trump "got played" by Putin and that "[a]ll the threatened sanctions ... apparently have been set aside." Van Hollen called for the Senate to move ahead on bipartisan legislation that would impose new sanctions on Russia. Catch up quick: Trump, in a Truth Social post after the summit, said the meeting — and a subsequent phone call with Zelensky and European leaders — went "very well." He wrote that it "was determined by all" that a peace agreement, rather than a "mere Ceasefire Agreement" would be the best solution. Zelensky had been adamant that there must be a ceasefire before peace talks, Axios' Barak Ravid reports. The terms that Putin laid out in the summit included that Ukraine cede two of the four regions to which Russia has laid claim and freeze the front lines in the other two, Axios' Barak Ravid and Dave Lawler reported, citing two sources briefed on a call U.S. officials held with other allied leaders. Flashback: Zelensky's Monday trip to Washington comes around six months after Trump's February Oval Office meeting with the Ukrainian leader boiled over into a heated argument. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte are all expected to attend the meeting with Zelensky. Friction point: On CBS News' "Face the Nation," Rubio denied that those leaders were joining Zelensky as backup to protect him from being bullied into a deal. "This is such a stupid media narrative; that they are coming here tomorrow because Trump is going to bully Zelensky into a bad deal," he said. "We invited them to come," he added. "The president invited them to come."

GM's quarterly results illustrate the folly of tariffs
GM's quarterly results illustrate the folly of tariffs

The Hill

time27 minutes ago

  • The Hill

GM's quarterly results illustrate the folly of tariffs

General Motors, a cornerstone of American industry, is suffering the consequences of President Trump's unconstitutional 25 percent tariffs on imported vehicles and auto parts. In the second quarter of 2025, GM suffered a $1.1 billion tariff blow to its operating income, slashing the company's profit margin from a healthy 9 percent to just 6.1 percent. Net income plunged by 36.1 percent from the prior quarter and by a staggering 40.7 percent compared to a year ago. Although the estimated tariff impact for the full year of $4 billion to $5 billion is less than 3 percent of GM's overall revenue, that cost represents more than half of the typical annual income for the company over the past decade. The consequences extend far beyond GM's balance sheet. Tariffs, paid by importers to the federal government, are partly absorbed by companies and partly passed to consumers. We've especially seen this in import-sensitive sectors including furnishings, appliances, clothes and toys. Men's shirts and sweaters, for instance, rose 4.9 percent in June alone. When businesses 'eat' the cost, as GM tried to do last quarter, the fallout is no less severe. Diminished earnings mean less capital for investment in better technology or expanded operations, slowing broader economic growth, fewer resources for pay raises or new jobs — hardly the boon for workers that tariff advocates promise. The data confirms this. Nationwide, 14,000 manufacturing jobs disappeared in the past two months, erasing all gains in 2025. In June, real average weekly earnings dropped by 0.4 percent, an annualized loss of nearly 5 percent. Shareholders are also feeling the pinch. Stock valuations track a company's expected future earnings. Since 2012, GM's stock price increased by more than 200 percent. GM's price-to-earnings ratio today stands at 6.83, almost identical to 2012 levels. Stock prices increased alongside earnings. A sustained $5 billion annual hit, wiping out over half of GM's annual net income, could erase more than $20 billion in market capitalization if valuations adjust. With tariffs eroding profits, is it any wonder that GM's stock has slid 8 percent since its post-2024 election peak and now languishes 13 percent off its 2021 highs? This affects millions of middle-class Americans and retirees with pensions and savings invested. More broadly, lower dividends and diminished returns discourage investment, starving companies of the capital needed to expand. The result: slower growth, fewer jobs and weaker wage gains. GM, to its credit, is fighting to offset 30 percent of this burden by boosting U.S. production, cutting costs and increasing domestic content to comply with the USMCA trade agreement's labyrinthine rules. Yet even if successful, the net impact of $2.8 billion to $3.5 billion will devour a significant slice of GM's already thin margins. Profit margins at GM — as in most other sectors — are far less than conventional wisdom. GM's net profit margin over the past decade has averaged less than 5 percent. In other words, a $30,000 vehicle yields less than $1,500 in profit. GM's plans to shift some production to U.S. plants and rework supply chains is a testament to private enterprise's resilience. But make no mistake: These shifts sacrifice efficiency for compliance. Restructuring operations in a free market in pursuit of efficiency yields more profit, consumer benefit and economic growth. Doing so under duress to escape arbitrary tariffs may result in survival, but without these benefits. Resources that could have fueled innovation or lowered prices are now squandered on navigating artificial trade barriers. As an important sidenote, roughly half the tariff's cost stems from GM's South Korean operations, a stark reminder of the folly of taxing trade with allies. Rather than strengthening ties with democratic partners through bold free-trade agreements, these tariffs risk pushing nations like South Korea toward China, America's chief adversary. Far from economic strategy, it is geopolitical shortsightedness. Politicians sometimes prefer tariffs to other forms of taxation because they are less visible than taxes on income or sales. This makes it easier to dodge accountability by blaming 'greedy' corporations. For this reason, Trump called Jeff Bezos to deter Amazon from listing tariff costs on purchases. The White House press secretary labeled this a 'hostile and political act by Amazon.' Regardless, protectionism is not cost-free. Sustained tariffs will raise prices, shrink profits, erode real wages and slow economic growth. GM's quarterly results are a warning.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store