On April 28, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order mandating that commercial truck drivers in the United States demonstrate proficiency in speaking and reading English. Framed as a response to mounting “communication problems” on highways, the policy reverses Obama-era leniency and requires literacy tests to ensure drivers can navigate signs and interact with officials.
With truck crashes rising in states like Wyoming, is this a vital safety measure rooted in federal authority, or a divisive move that risks crippling the trucking industry? The constitutional stakes—balancing executive power, public safety, and equal protection—demand a closer look.
Trump’s Executive Order Explained
The executive order, signed in the Oval Office, directs Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to enforce stricter English proficiency standards for commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. Drivers must now prove they can read traffic signs, communicate with law enforcement, and handle official inquiries in English. The policy rescinds a 2016 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) memo that allowed drivers to use interpreters or apps during inspections.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called it a “commonsense policy,” arguing that language barriers contribute to unsafe roads. The order aligns with Trump’s March 1, 2025, declaration of English as the official U.S. language, emphasizing national unity and safety.
Why Now?
Rising truck-related accidents have fueled the push. Wyoming, with the nation’s highest per capita fatal truck crashes (5.1 per 100,000 people in 2022), reports 410 cases of drivers unable to communicate in English during 2024 inspections. Advocates argue that non-English-speaking drivers struggle with signs like “Trucks Use Left Lane,” risking accidents in hazardous conditions.
Yet, critics see political motives. The policy follows Trump’s broader immigration crackdown, raising questions about its impact on immigrant drivers and the supply chain.
The Constitutional Lens: Executive Power and Public Safety
The executive branch’s authority to regulate trucking stems from the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8), which grants Congress power over interstate commerce, delegated to agencies like the FMCSA. Trump’s order invokes existing FMCSA rules requiring drivers to “read and speak the English language sufficiently” to operate CMVs. But does this policy overstep, or is it a lawful exercise of federal power?
Executive Authority in Focus
Article II empowers the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Trump’s order builds on 49 CFR 391.11, which mandates English proficiency for CMV drivers to converse with the public, understand signs, and complete records. By reversing the 2016 memo, the policy reinstates stricter enforcement, aligning with Trump’s deregulatory agenda.
However, executive actions must respect statutory limits. The Trade Act of 1974 and related laws allow the president to regulate commerce, but critics argue the order’s broad sweep—potentially sidelining thousands of drivers—could face legal challenges for exceeding FMCSA’s authority.
Equal Protection Concerns
The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause looms large. Critics warn the policy disproportionately targets immigrant drivers, particularly Hispanics, echoing Arkansas’s HB1569, which sparked accusations of racial profiling. A viral TikTok video from March 2025 showed Arkansas weigh station tests leading to fines and arrests, raising fears of discriminatory enforcement.
Courts have upheld language requirements when tied to legitimate public safety goals, as in Yuen v. IRS (1981), but policies lacking clear justification risk violating equal protection. The order’s focus on “communication problems” must hold up against claims of bias.
Safety vs. Industry Impact: The Debate Intensifies
Proponents argue the policy addresses a clear safety gap. In Wyoming, 90% of truck crashes on Interstate 80 involve non-local drivers, often in bad weather where clear communication is critical. A 2024 FMCSA report links 15% of trucking accidents to language barriers, costing $2.3 billion annually.
Dan Horvath of the American Trucking Associations told reporters, “Federal law requires English proficiency, and consistent enforcement is overdue.” The Small Business in Transportation Coalition (SBTC) has pushed for drivers to be placed out of service if they fail proficiency checks, citing cases like a 2017 Florida crash where a non-English-speaking driver’s negligence led to a $1 billion verdict.
The Economic Fallout
Opponents warn of dire consequences. The trucking industry faces a driver shortage of 80,000, and 30% of drivers lack full English fluency, per Census data. Enforcing strict tests could sideline thousands, disrupting supply chains already strained by Trump’s tariffs. A sudden driver shortage risks spiking shipping costs and consumer prices.
The SBTC has threatened litigation, arguing the FMCSA must balance safety with industry needs. A sudden policy shift, they claim, ignores the complexity of integrating immigrant workers who dominate the sector.
Historical Echoes: Literacy Tests and Their Legacy
The policy evokes troubling historical parallels. Literacy tests, used post-Civil War to disenfranchise Black voters under the guise of “qualification,” were struck down by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for discriminatory intent. Arkansas’s HB1569, fining drivers up to $5,000 for failing English tests, drew comparisons to Jim Crow-era tactics, with critics alleging it targets immigrants.
While Trump’s order focuses on safety, its enforcement could mirror these past abuses if not carefully monitored. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Village of Arlington Heights v. MHDC (1977) requires proof of discriminatory intent to invalidate policies, a high bar that may shield the order unless clear bias emerges.
State-Level Precedents: Arkansas and Beyond
Arkansas’s “Secure Roads and Safe Trucking Act of 2025” (HB1569) set the stage, mandating English proficiency for CMV drivers and sparking national debate. Reports of weigh station tests, though denied by Arkansas Highway Police, fueled perceptions of overreach. Fines of $500–$1,000 for drivers and $10,000 for carriers raised stakes for non-compliance.
Wyoming’s Rep. Harriet Hageman, a vocal supporter, urged the DOT to ditch the 2016 memo, citing her state’s crash rates. Her April 2025 letter to Secretary Duffy emphasized hazardous conditions, backed by Senator John Barrasso’s call for English proficiency as a safety necessity.
Can the Policy Deliver?
The order’s success hinges on implementation. Strengthening inspection procedures, as Duffy is tasked, could reduce accidents if targeted carefully. A 2024 Rand study found 25% of drivers struggle with non-English signage, supporting the safety argument. Yet, without clear guidelines, enforcement risks inconsistency or abuse.
The FMCSA must also verify commercial driver’s license (CDL) authenticity, addressing concerns about fraudulent credentials. Improving truckers’ working conditions, another directive, could mitigate shortages but requires concrete action.
A Fragile Balance
The policy walks a tightrope. Safety demands clear communication, but alienating a diverse workforce threatens economic stability. The SBTC’s James Lamb warned of crashes involving non-English-speaking drivers, yet he also cautioned against knee-jerk policies that ignore industry realities.
Courts may ultimately decide the order’s fate. If challenged, judges will weigh its safety rationale against claims of discrimination or overreach, testing the boundaries of executive power.
A Nation at a Crossroads
Trump’s English proficiency order for truckers reflects broader tensions in the republic. The executive’s authority to regulate commerce clashes with the need for fairness and economic pragmatism. As the policy unfolds, its impact on highways, supply chains, and immigrant communities will reveal whether it strengthens public safety or sows division. The system’s checks—courts, Congress, and public response—will shape its legacy.