White House Stance on Word Choice in Official Documents: A Closer Look at Shifting Language Policies
Recent reports have stirred controversy surrounding the alleged banning of certain words from official government documents during the Trump administration. These reports, amplified by various media outlets, claimed that words like "diverse," "LGBTQ," and "unconscious bias" were among hundreds of terms restricted from use. However, Fox News Digital, citing an administration official, has shed light on the actual policy regarding word choice, asserting that the White House did not maintain a list of banned words. Instead, individual agencies were entrusted with the discretion to choose language that aligns with President Donald Trump’s executive orders.
This approach highlights a broader trend of presidential administrations adjusting language in official communications to reflect their policies and visions. Trump’s tenure was marked by several executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, as well as addressing transgender issues. These orders included measures such as banning biological men from participating in women’s sports and prohibiting transgender surgical procedures for children.
The executive orders rescinded numerous Biden-era policies, most notably ending DEI programs that had been integrated into the federal government during his term.
The New York Times reported that approximately 250 words were allegedly removed from Trump administrations lexicon or at least used with discretion.
It is important to note that the discretion given to individual agencies led to varying interpretations and approaches to language use. Some agencies, in an effort to comply with Trump’s executive orders, may have misinterpreted the scope of the restrictions and implemented overly broad prohibitions. This resulted in instances where words like "woman," "disabled," and "elderly" were reportedly discouraged from use in external documents by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), sparking further criticism and debate.
The White House responded to these claims, with an official telling Reuters that most of the allegedly banned words did not need to be removed from external communications and documents. The White House specifically mentioned "gender," "inclusion," "identity," "diversity," "intersex," "equity," "equitable," "transgender," and "trans" as terms that did not need to be prohibited to comply with Trump’s executive orders.
The incident reflects the complexities of aligning language with policy objectives. While administrations aim to ensure that official communications reflect their values and priorities, overly restrictive language policies can lead to unintended consequences, such as alienating certain groups, stifling open discussion, and undermining the credibility of government documents.
The focus on word choice is not new. Prior administrations have also adjusted language to align with their policies. For instance, the Biden administration used the phrase "birthing people" instead of "mothers" in a 2022 budget proposal, a move that sparked controversy and fueled accusations of erasing women. Similarly, the Obama administration favored the term "undocumented immigrants" over "illegal immigrant" in official texts and presidential speeches, reflecting a shift in perspective on immigration policy.
The debate over language use in government documents extends beyond specific words and touches upon broader questions about inclusivity, representation, and the power of language to shape public discourse. While administrations have the right to set the tone for their communications, it is crucial to strike a balance between policy objectives and the need for clear, accurate, and respectful language that reflects the diversity of the population.
The claims that agencies may have went too far in language restriction is not far from the truth. By limiting the use of words like woman, the federal government is not promoting inclusivity, but rather alienating a large demographic. Similarly, not being able to use words like elderly or disabled can lead to miscommunication and confusion about a government program or service.
The Trump administration executive orders were designed to push back on the culture war issues that were at the time a forefront in the news. DEI and gender identity were at the forefront of media outlets, and it was of no surprise that the Trump administration would respond with executive action. DEI was seen as a government push to prioritize minorities over a majority population, and any discussion about gender issues always caused controversy and uproar, regardless of the actual issue at hand.
The discussion around the banned words and whether agencies restricted language too much speaks to a growing issue in modern communication, which is walking the line of speaking about an issue respectfully while also making sure not to offend. In many cases, the federal government should take the route of precision and clarity, instead of trying to adhere to the standards of sensitive language. With the executive orders, it seemed the White House stance was to reduce use of language about sensitive topics to reduce the amount of possible controversies. While it might have backfired, the action was clearly done with an intent.
