At a time when almost every public policy issue seems to divide neatly along red and blue lines, it’s easy to assume that even something as straightforward as making sure local governments can communicate with all their residents would fall victim to the same polarization.
But the reality, as outlined in the 2025 State of Language Access in Local Government report, is more complex. While Republican and Democratic leaning states approach language access differently, the story isn’t just about partisanship. It’s about values, perceptions of need, and real resource constraints.
The stakes are high. Roughly 68 million Americans speak a language other than English at home, and 8.2% of the population has limited English proficiency. When residents can’t follow city council meetings or understand public safety alerts, it undermines the very idea of participatory democracy.
The report found that in blue states, 75% of say providing language access is very important, while in red states, that number drops to 52%. The gap in perceived urgency is meaningful, but not necessarily a sign that red states don’t care. In fact, 83% of respondents in both red and blue states believe improving language access fosters stronger community collaboration.
What differs are the motivators. In blue states, the top drivers are civic engagement (81%) and legal compliance (64%). States that lean more Democratic frame language access as an obligation that ensures all residents can participate and understand their rights.
Republican-leaning states, on the other hand, tend to take a practical approach and focus on public safety (70%) and workforce development (80%). They view language access as a critical tool for effective emergency response and driving economic growth.
These goals aren’t in conflict; they simply reflect different starting points. One emphasizes representation and equity, the other, safety and resilience. Understanding these motivations explains why language access efforts vary.
The same duality shows up in how inclusive local governments perceive their public meetings to be. 50% of respondents in blue states say their meetings are inclusive for non-English speakers and people who are hard of hearing, while only 29% agree in red states.
Yet across both political spectrums, many municipalities are using the same tools, most commonly, relying on bilingual staff. This approach can work, up to a point. But as communities grow more linguistically diverse, governments are hitting the limits of what informal translation support can achieve.
What’s holding implementation back? Cost is still the number one barrier. Budget constraints were cited by 53% of respondents in red states and 47% in blue. That’s no surprise. Local governments everywhere are being asked to do more with less. But if we can lower the cost of translation while maintaining quality, then adoption becomes less a matter of ideology and more a matter of feasibility.
This is where AI comes in.
Real-time AI translation and captioning tools have the potential to dramatically expand access while reducing costs, especially for routine communications like City Council meetings, public safety announcements, and community outreach. Instead of hiring multiple interpreters, AI can provide real-time translation and captions at a fraction of the cost. For local governments with tight budgets, this technology can significantly expand access without sacrificing quality. This, in turn, can free up resources for higher-stakes needs while still meeting legal and community expectations.
We’re seeing this in practice. Municipalities like San Jose, Los Angeles County, and Washoe County, have embraced AI translation as a practical, scalable solution for improving language access. They’re using AI to make City Council meetings more inclusive, communicate public safety alerts, and conduct employee training. This approach helps residents engage in their preferred language while saving time, reducing costs, and simplifying logistics.
There’s growing momentum behind these tools, with 64% of blue state and 46% of red state officials expressing interest or actively evaluating them. Adoption is still limited (33% in blue states, 29% in red states ), but the interest suggests a shift toward scalable, cost-effective approaches.
In the end, language access isn’t a culture war issue. It’s a basic function of effective governance. And despite surface-level differences, both sides recognize the value it brings. The challenge now is to move from interest to action—and to do so in ways that respect local values while ensuring no resident is left out of the conversation.
If we want to restore faith in government, we can start with something simple: making sure everyone understands what’s being said.
About the Author
Dave Deasy is the CMO of Wordly, the pioneer and leader in AI translation and captioning. Used by over 4 million people in 60+ languages, Wordly supports inclusive meetings and public engagement.
