- Related banned words: activism, activists, advocacy, advocate, advocates
Trump’s administration has limited the use of “advocate” and all related words. This will make it a lot harder for individuals or groups trying to promote change or speak out on significant issues.
Removing the word makes it obvious the administration prefers passive and uninvolved citizens. Activists could never be stopped entirely, but this is direct attack on their actions.
- Related banned words: diverse, diversify, diversity, inclusion, inclusivity, equal opportunity, equality, equity
Trump has been loud about his attack on DEI. According to him, “diversity, equity, and inclusion” is a big conspiracy dragging the country toward chaos. There’s a lot of irony in him excluding the word “inclusion” in government documents.
This administration is not focusing on policies aimed at addressing systemic disparities in workplaces, schools, and institutions. Erasing the phrase will affect related programs and initiatives nationwide that value fairness and representation.
While a lot of the words on the list have a political connotation, “disability” and “disabilities” don’t. We can’t really understand the purpose of removing these words. If we’re not using the word, disabled people won’t just vanish.
Removing these words is completely impractical. Accessibility policies are necessary and will be a lot harder to draft without being to acknowledge the people who need them. This affects people born with disabilities, disabled veterans, and retired individuals.
- Related banned words: Black and Latinx, Hispanic Minority, Native American, Indigenous community
Discussing ethnicity is apparently too complicated for the government despite being a question on every form. Not only can you not say the word “ethnicity,” but you also can’t list your own ethnicity.
Erasing “ethnicity” feels like erasing the identities of millions of Americans. Perhaps it’s meant to simplify the country’s demographics for surveys or render them irrelevant. Regardless, we’re not sure how this will work.
This one’s a head-scratcher. Banning the name of a literal geographic region? Were they hoping it would just, you know, go away like other inconvenient truths (see climate change)?
Trump has officially changed the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America” and is outlawing anybody from calling it otherwise. This is not what most Americans had in mind when they elected him to make changes.
Apparently, using “historically” is too woke for this administration. They’re refusing to look at the past or even talk about it now. For an administration so proud of their roots, this seems like a strange choice.
Using this term is important to identify long-term patterns or challenges, like systemic inequality or economic shifts. Limiting it could streamline messaging but also simplify discussions that require historical context.
Trump moving away from the word “immigrants” reflects broader changes in messages about immigration. This adjustment will affect how migrant issues and policies are discussed as well as how immigrants are treated in the country.
Removing this word conveniently erases their humanity while reinforcing other words like “illegals.” Neutral and inclusive language will remain crucial for balanced discussions, but the government is being censored.
Injustice is a huge part of the history of the United States, but you wouldn’t know that looking at government documents today. They’re trying to rewrite history as we speak.
The term often plays a role in conversations about social reform or systemic improvements. Clear language will be needed to ensure that such issues are still effectively addressed.
The Trump administration is trying to erase the existence of LGBTQ people by removing the word from federal documents. Despite this, LGBTQ people aren’t going anywhere, but these policies will worsen the stigma they face.
While these terms are specific and inclusive, limiting their use will make it harder to address the challenges faced by LGBTQ individuals. Clear, respectful language remains essential for effective policies.
The decision to limit references to “mental health” might shift how the government approaches public health programs and discussions. Striking this term feels like a desperate bid to avoid having to fund mental health initiatives. Out of sight, out of mind, literally.
This could affect communication about mental health care and services, making it more difficult for people to access therapy and medication. The country has come pretty far in the past few years on these fronts, but this could push it back years.
Keep the word “political” out of politics! Or, wait… isn’t that the point? Limiting the word “political” could reflect an intent to reduce partisanship in official communications. However, this might also limit discussion of policy actions that inherently have political implications.
Clear messaging about government actions often requires acknowledging their political dimensions. A careful balance will be needed to maintain accuracy while avoiding overt partisanship.
- Related banned words: clean energy, climate crisis, climate science
The existence of pollution has never been up for debate, but apparently, being able to use the word is up for debate. Removing “pollution” as well as related phrases like “clean energy” and “climate crisis” sets the world up for failure.
There can be no action addressing climate change if we’re not allowed to talk about it or acknowledge the causes. This also means that corporations will be able to get away with a lot more without environmental protections in place.
- Related banned words: segregation
Perhaps no words are more terrifying to this administration than “race” and “racism.” Best to sweep all history, statistics, and inequities under the rug for some vague “post-racial” fantasy the administration claims.
Ignoring racism doesn’t make it go away, but it does make systemic inequality that much harder to tackle. This change could shift the framing of civil rights issues in official statements, making it harder to create positive change.
- Related banned words: victim
Banned the words “trauma,” “traumatic,” and “victim” won’t stop people from feeling its effects, but it does make it easier for the administration to sideline systemic problems. Denial is cheaper than solutions.
These terms are often key in addressing the effects of violence, abuse, or disasters. Careful language is needed to ensure policies address these impacts effectively.
- Related banned words: gender/genders, female/females, pronoun/pronouns
It seems “women” is a trigger word now.” Notice how “men” isn’t on this list, though. It’s only “women” and “females” who cause problems. Who cares about more than half the population, right?
This will affect discussions around women’s issues like gender pay gaps and reproductive heath, among others. This change may shift how policies about women’s rights are crafted and prioritized, but it won’t make them any less important.
