Vanishing Words, Vanishing Truth: The Government’s War on Language

Image via Medium

***

Since January 2025, The U.S. government has released a number of internal documents, flagging hundreds of words to limit their appearance on public-facing websites and official documents. Words like “transgender,” “diversity,” “systemic racism,” “women,” and “equity” were found to have been quietly scrubbed from several agencies’ public materials—signaling a stark authoritarian shift in how the government defines and acknowledges social issues. 

At first glance, this may seem like mere semantics—a routine adjustment in government phrasing dictated by political ideology. But language is not neutral. It is the foundation of thought; it shapes discourse, policy, and public understanding. 

History warns of the dangers of linguistic control. Orwell’s 1984 introduced the concept of newspeak—a language designed to eliminate dissenting thought by restricting vocabulary. This is not just a dystopian fantasy concept: it is a strategy that has been used by authoritarian regimes throughout history. The Soviet Union censored speech critical of communism while Nazi Germany eliminated terminology tied to opposition ideologies. The U.S. itself during McCarthyism created the narrative that the “mere discussion of communist ideals was dangerous,” suppressing language associated with socialism to control political narratives. More recently, countries like Hungary and Poland have restricted gender studies and LGBTQ+ terminology in government materials to reshape national discourse.

The logic behind these tactics is clear: if language for an issue disappears, so does the ability to discuss, research, and resolve it. By banning terms like “systemic racism,” the government signals that it will not acknowledge racial disparities. By erasing “transgender” from public health materials, the government is able to deny the existence of trans individuals and prevent their access to vital medical resources. 

The suppression of language has corresponded with the removal of entire sources of knowledge. In recent months, several public health databases have been taken offline without explanation, including repositories containing research on LGBTQ+ health, racial disparities in maternal care, and climate change data. The disappearance of these records limits access to crucial/accurate information, making it harder for activists, researchers, and even policy makers to rely on government-backed sources. The consequences of this are tangible: if scientific and social research is suppressed, how can we expect policies to be data-driven and effective? 

The Trump administration, despite claiming to champion free speech, has directly contradicted itself through this censorship. On January 20, 2025, Trump issued an executive order stating: 

“The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, an amendment essential to the success of our Republic, enshrines the right of the American people to speak freely in the public square without Government interference. […] Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.”

Yet, his administration is actively restricting language and eliminating entire records of knowledge. This is not just the suppression of speech, but the rewriting of history. 

The defense of these actions centers on the claim that they aim to depoliticize government documents. Supporters argue that the restricted terms are too ideologically loaded or divisive. This mirrors the logic behind a March 2025 executive order signed by President Trump, which targeted the Smithsonian Institution for allegedly promoting “divisive, race-centered ideology.” However, removing language does not depoliticize the issues—it erases the ability to address them. Climate change does not cease to exist if the phrase is scrubbed from reports. Discrimination does not vanish if the term “systemic racism” is omitted. If anything, these actions make governance less transparent and less accountable. 

This control over speech sets a dangerous precedent. Language is a tool of governance, and when wielded to erase certain perspectives, it threatens the very foundation of democracy. The First Amendment protects against government suppression of speech, yet these new policies blur the line between bureaucratic discretion and outright censorship. 

This is not just a matter of policy—it is a fight for reality itself. 

Here’s how individuals can take action: 

1. Stay Informed and Speak Out: Awareness is the first line of defense against censorship. If language is being manipulated to erase social issues, we must be vigilant in recognizing and calling it out. Share information, question official narratives, and engage in discussions that keep these issues visible. 
2. Preserve and Share Information: The internet allows individuals to archive and distribute important documents before they disappear. Use tools like the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine to save web pages, download reports, and share resources on decentralized platforms. If the government erases knowledge, we must ensure it survives elsewhere. 
3. Support Organizations Fighting for Transparency: Groups like the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and ProPublica work to expose and challenge censorship. Donating, volunteering, or even just amplifying their work helps keep pressure on those in power. 
4. Engage in Local and National Advocacy: Contacting representatives, signing petitions, and attending town halls may seem small, but sustained public pressure can force lawmakers to act. Demand that elected officials push for transparency in government communications and protect access to public records. 
5. Use Restricted Language Intentionally: If the goal of these policies is to erase certain concepts, one of the simplest acts of resistance is to continue using those words—loudly and often. Whether in everyday conversations, social media, or public writing, refusing to let these terms disappear keeps the issues they represent in focus. 

Censorship thrives in silence. The best way to resist is to refuse to be silent.

***

This article was edited by Gagandeep Kaur.