Executive Summary

• The White House has ordered heightened enforcement of the federal English language proficiency requirement for commercial drivers as part of a larger initiative to improve roadway safety.
• Trucking companies employing truck drivers must balance compliance with federal rules against state and federal employment laws that restrict English-only policies.
• Independent contractors are also subject to the federal rule, but the legal risks are different, focusing on contractual obligations, regulatory enforcement, and misclassification exposure.
• Employers should consult with experienced employment counsel before adopting or revising any policy or practice in response to these developments. 

Introduction

On April 28, 2025, the White House issued an Executive Order¹ directing stricter enforcement of the longstanding English language proficiency requirement for commercial motor vehicle drivers. While the rule itself has been on the books for years, enforcement has been limited. That is changing. Federal regulators will now expect carriers to ensure their drivers meet the minimum proficiency needed to read road signs, interact with law enforcement, and complete required documentation. This development raises immediate compliance questions for trucking companies and creates new employment law considerations, particularly in California.

Understanding the English Language Proficiency Enforcement Initiative

The English language proficiency requirement for drivers in interstate commerce dates back to 1937. The requirement was based on the premise that the "ability to read and speak English is important to any adequate compliance with safety regulations."²  But from the time it was added to the federal code in 1970 until 2007, a violation of this requirement did not result in an out-of-service order.³  Over the following fifteen years, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) altered its enforcement guidance and policies leading up the Trump administration's current initiative.

Under FMCSA's 2007 guidance, inspectors were required to confirm a driver's ability to communicate in English sufficiently to understand and respond to official inquiries by conducting a driver interview. In that interview, inspectors were to make the following inquiries in English:

• The origin and destination of the trip;
• The amount of time spent on duty, including drive time, and the record of duty status;
• The driver's license; and
• Vehicle components and systems subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs).

Failure to satisfy the inspectors' assessment of English would result in a violation and the driver would be placed out of service.

But in 2016, FMCSA issued new guidance removing the requirement to place drivers out of service and changed the agency's standard for determining non-compliance.⁴  Under the new guidance, formal driver interviews to confirm English proficiency were no longer conducted during roadside inspections. Furthermore, so long as the driver could sufficiently communicate with the inspectors, they were not cited for violating the English proficiency requirement. During the course of the inspection, drivers were permitted to utilize interpreters, I-Speak cards, cue cards, and smart phone applications to assist their communication with inspectors. To the extent that any violation of 49 CFR 391.11(b)(2) was found, the driver was not to be placed out of service.

President Trump's executive order and the ensuing FMCSA Internal Agency Enforcement Policy on May 20, 2025 reverted DOT and FMCSA policy to the prior out-of-service enforcement standard.⁵  Under the new policy, if the "inspector's initial contact with the driver indicates that the driver may not understand the inspector's initial instructions," the inspector should conduct at English language proficient assessment as part of the roadside inspection.⁶  During this assessment, no tools may be used to assist the driver in communicating with the inspector. If the driver fails the assessment, they shall be placed immediately out of service. But if the driver satisfies the inspector's assessment, the inspector is then to assess whether the driver can sufficiently understand U.S. highway traffic signs.⁷

Implications for Employee Drivers

The heightened enforcement of the English language proficiency requirement has significant implications for trucking companies that employ drivers. Although the underlying rule has long been part of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, the new Executive Order and FMCSA policy signals that compliance will now be closely monitored and enforced. This means employers will need to ensure that their drivers meet the minimum level of proficiency required to communicate with officials, read road signs, and complete documentation, or risk having drivers placed out of service.

Balancing Compliance with Employment Law Obligations

For trucking companies, the challenge lies in ensuring compliance with two potentially competing obligations: (1) ensuring compliance with federal safety standards; and (2) avoiding employment practices that may be deemed discriminatory under state and federal employment laws.

In California, this balancing act is particularly delicate. Regulations interpreting the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) make clear that blanket “English-only” workplace policies are presumptively unlawful, unless the employer can show:

1. The language restriction is justified by business necessity;
2. The language restriction is narrowly tailored; and
3. The employer has effectively notified its employees of the circumstances and time when the language restriction is required to be observed and of the consequence for violating the language restriction.⁸

A business necessity is defined narrowly and applies only where an English-only rule is needed for the safe and efficient operation of the business, the language restriction fulfills the intended business purpose, and no alternative practice to the language restriction would accomplish the intended business purpose equally well with a lesser discriminatory impact. Courts and regulators have cautioned that requiring employees to speak English at all times, including during breaks or non-work interactions, can expose employers to claims of ancestry or national origin discrimination.

At the federal level, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act provides similar protections. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued guidelines making clear that blanket English-only policies are presumed to violate Title VII unless the employer can show the rule is justified by business necessity.⁹ The EEOC recognizes that limited English-only rules may be permissible, such as when communication with law enforcement, customers, or other employees is necessary, or during emergencies.

Practical Considerations for Employers

Employers in the trucking industry should therefore approach compliance with Executive Order carefully:

1. Policy Development. Any policy adopted to ensure proficiency should be narrowly tailored to the situations in which English proficiency is legally required. For example, when communicating with law enforcement or regulatory officials, reading road signs, or completing required documentation.
2. Avoiding “English-Only” Rules. Employers should avoid language in policies or handbooks that could be construed as mandating English in all workplace settings. Drivers should be free to speak other languages during breaks, personal conversations, or other contexts that do not implicate federal safety regulations.
3. Training and Communication. Employers may consider providing training or resources to help drivers meet the minimum English proficiency standard, while also making clear that the workplace is not “English-only.” This distinction is important in reducing the risk of discrimination claims.
4. Discipline and Retention. Employers will need to consider how to handle situations where an employee driver is found not to meet the required proficiency. Disciplinary measures, if used, should be consistent, non-discriminatory, and documented with reference to the federal safety requirement, not an employer-imposed “English-only” rule.

Considerations for Independent Contractors

Many trucking companies also rely on independent contractors or owner-operators. While FEHA and Title VII protections generally do not extend to contractors, the federal English proficiency requirement applies to anyone operating a commercial vehicle. Carriers should take steps to mitigate risks by ensuring that contracts clearly assign responsibility for regulatory compliance. Companies should also remain aware of misclassification concerns under California law, as exerting too much control over contractors, including imposing broad language requirements, may increase the risk of those workers being deemed employees.

Key Takeaways

The Executive Order underscores that trucking employers must now take English proficiency requirements seriously, but in doing so they must also be mindful of employment law constraints. Policies should be carefully drafted to comply with federal enforcement priorities without crossing the line into impermissible “English-only” practices.

For independent contractors, the focus shifts to contract management and operational planning. Carriers should ensure agreements place responsibility for compliance on contractors and avoid practices that could blur the line between contractors and employees.

By taking a measured and safety-focused approach, employers can protect their operations from enforcement disruptions while minimizing exposure to employment claims and misclassification risks.

---

¹ Enforcing Commonsense Rules of the Road for America's Truck Drivers, Exec. Order 14286, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/enforcing-commonsense-rules-of-the-road-for-americas-truck-drivers/. 

² 79 FR 59139 (Oct. 1, 2015). 

³ July 20, 2007 Memorandum, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/FMCSA-2008-0090-0019. 

⁴ June 15, 2016 Memorandum, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

⁵ May 20, 2025 Internal Agency Enforcement Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2025-05/FMCSA%20ELP%20Guidance%20with%20Attachments%20Final%20%285-20-2025%29_Redacted.pdf.

⁶ Id.

⁷ Id. 

⁸ Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11028(a), (d)

⁹ 29 C.F.R. § 1606.7