James Baldwin viewed language as deeply tied to power, identity and historical reality, particularly for marginalized communities. Language, he wrote is “meant to define the other – and in this indispensable, cruelly dishonest role, it can be employed to obscure the truth.” Writers like Baldwin remind us that language is more than just a tool for communication—it shapes thought, reinforces power structures, and influences the way individuals perceive reality. 

George Orwell’s 1984 introduced the concept of Newspeak, a controlled language designed to eliminate rebellious thoughts by removing words that could express them. While Orwell’s dystopian vision was extreme, recent efforts by federal agencies, universities and private corporations in the United States to limit or avoid certain words raise important questions about how language can be used to guide, restrict, or manipulate discourse or even behaviours.

Remember the phrase “alternative facts”? It was coined by Kelleyanne Conway, former chief whisperer to President Donald Trump. In a January 2017 interview, Conway defended inaccurate statements about the size of Trump’s inauguration crowd when she said White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer wasn’t lying; he was merely presenting “alternative facts.”

Every day, it seems, we seek to understand the rationale behind Trump’s actions. Whether it’s his alignment with Russia’s Vladimir Putin and other authoritarian governments, or his fixation and desire to acquire Canada as “the 51st state.” His pattern of rhetoric and actions challenges democratic norms and institutions. For example, he has vowed to “root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country”; and labelled the media as “the enemy of the people”. To solidify its power, the Trump administration has also directed government agencies to avoiding using certain words and phrases. For example, “enhancing diversity”, “gender-based”, “hate speech”, “non-binary”, “sense of belonging”, “underserved”, “marginalize”, “fetus”, “activism”, “systemic”. The list goes on. 

In Orwell’s 1984, the Party sought to consolidate power by eliminating words that conveyed dangerous ideas. Words like freedom, democracy, justice, and revolution were systematically removed or replaced with vague, Party-approved alternatives. If people could not articulate dissent, the logic followed, they could not conceive of it.

The Party replaced “bad” with ungood; “very bad” with doubleplusungood; “lies” with misdirection; “individualism” with ownlife – suggesting that living for oneself was dangerous. By simplifying language and eliminating nuance, the Party ensured that independent thinking became impossible. Even recalling the past was dangerous, as phrases such as “I remember when…” could challenge the Party’s rewritten history. The goal was to make dissent unthinkable—not just illegal, but linguistically impossible.

While we do not yet live under Orwell’s dystopian rule, modern institutions — particularly government agencies in the United States — have adopted their own language restrictions. Today, certain words and phrases are being limited or avoided in federal agencies in the United States. These decisions should raise concerns about who controls language and why. 

Many states that support Trump have enacted measures to restrict or ban specific terms, phrases, and educational programs related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Some terms are replaced to promote inclusivity, while others are discouraged to align with Trumpian political narratives. Idaho prohibits educational institutions from teaching that any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, colour, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior. In Floridia, middle-school students are being taught how slaves “developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.” 

One particularly concerning and dangerous trend is the attempt to erase language, or even the history, related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and systemic racism from US federal discourse. Some agencies have been ordered to:

• Avoid using terms like systemic racism, instead opting for vague phrases like bias or disparities that downplay structural inequities.
• Replace diversity, equity, and inclusion with neutral alternatives such as workplace fairness or merit-based hiring, which ignore the historical and systemic barriers that DEI initiatives aim to address.
• Remove references to white privilege, racial justice, and intersectionality, framing discussions of equity in race-neutral terms that obscure historical discrimination.

An executive order by the President has also directed his Vice President to work with Congress and the Office of Management and Budget to withhold funding for exhibits that he decides “degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race.” And it takes specific aim at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture.

This erasure, however, is not limited to US federal agencies under the Trump administration. Corporations that once openly supported diversity, equity and inclusion are softening, rebranding, or reviewing their DEI programs. 

Major League Baseball has removed the term “diversity” from its careers homepage, reflecting a broader trend of reevaluating DEI language in light of new Trump executive orders.  There has been a substitution of “equity” with “opportunity” reflecting a move towards emphasizing equal access without guaranteeing equal outcomes, aligning with merit-based thinking. The bank JPMorgan Chase has rebranded its DEI program to “Diversity, Opportunity, and Inclusion” (DOI), replacing “equity” with “opportunity.” These changes and more, are an effort to comply with the Newspeak of the Trump administration.

These language shifts will have real-world consequences, as they minimize or erase acknowledgment of systemic injustice. Orwell warned of the dangers of controlling language to manipulate reality, and efforts to dilute or eliminate terms related to racism and inclusion reflect a troubling new form of Newspeak—one that seeks to render discussions of inequality invisible.

Orwell also warned of authoritarian control over language, but language evolves naturally in response to cultural shifts. The challenge is determining when word restrictions serve a positive social function and when they begin to resemble Newspeak’s erasure of free thought. We need to ask ourselves:

• When words are banned outright, does it enhance communication or limit open discourse?
• When alternative terms are mandated, does it expand understanding or enforce ideological conformity?
• When historical language is revised, does it correct past biases or erase inconvenient truths?

If we want to live in a just world, we must counter the suppression of language related to diversity, equity, inclusion and systemic racism. Language is powerful because it allows people to name ideas, challenge authority, and imagine alternatives. While adapting language for sensitivity and accuracy is necessary, suppressing words to control discourse is a dangerous path. 

If we are to learn from Orwell’s 1984, and from James Baldwin, we must remain vigilant in questioning who decides what can and cannot be said—and why. A society that values free thought must encourage open discussion, even when words are uncomfortable. After all, the ability to articulate dissent is the foundation of any truly democratic society.