Andy Kim (D-NJ)
Language Access for All Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with 3 Democratic cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Language Access for All Act of 2026 aims to help people with limited English proficiency (LEP) access Federal services. It requires agencies to create language access plans and technical standards for translating documents and providing interpreters. The bill establishes a public complaint system managed by the Attorney General and creates a Language Access Coordinator position in every agency. It also sets rules for using AI in translation, requiring human verification to ensure accuracy. Finally, it treats failure to comply with these rules as discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Yes· 3 of 35
- Scored +9
Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this?
Directly impacts one of the largest LEP populations in the US, significantly increasing access to services.
- Scored +9
Would Asian Americans be better off under this?
Directly impacts a large segment of the Asian American population facing linguistic barriers.
- Scored +9
Would immigrants be better off under this?
Crucial for immigrants with limited English proficiency to access essential federal services.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill mandates new spending for translations, interpreters, and administrative oversight.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
Implementation of language access plans and new coordinator positions will likely increase federal agency expenditures.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Improved Access to Services: Agencies must translate vital documents into frequently encountered and dominant languages and provide oral or remote interpretation, ensuring people with LEP can meaningfully access federal programs (Section 2(a)(1)).
-
Accountability for Failures: The Attorney General will maintain a public system for individuals to submit complaints about barriers to access, and agencies must respond to these complaints within 60 days (Section 2(a)(2)).
-
Protection Against AI Errors: Agencies cannot fully replace human translators with AI and must have a qualified human verify machine translations to ensure cultural context and accuracy (Section 2(d)(1), (2)(e)).
-
Emergency Preparedness: Agencies that provide emergency response must specify how they will provide multilingual communications during disasters or public health crises (Section 2(b)(1)(F)).
-
Legal Recourse: Individuals who are aggrieved by a lack of language access can bring administrative actions or seek civil and injunctive remedies (Section 2(g)(3)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Potential for Service Denials via Waivers: Agency heads can request waivers from technical standards if they claim an "undue burden," which could result in a lack of meaningful access if the Attorney General grants the request (Section 2(c)(3)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Directly impacts a large segment of the Asian American population facing linguistic barriers. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Directly impacts one of the largest LEP populations in the US, significantly increasing access to services. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Crucial for immigrants with limited English proficiency to access essential federal services. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income individuals are more likely to rely on federal programs and face language barriers. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Improves access to federal services for Native Americans speaking indigenous languages. Would retired people be better off under this? — Ensures LEP retirees can meaningfully access Social Security and Medicare. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors often face higher language barriers; this improves their access to federal healthcare and benefits. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Improves the ability of LEP veterans to receive benefits. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Explicitly includes signed communication for the deaf community. Would children be better off under this? — Improves access to federal child-related services for non-English speaking families. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Improves access to federal services for middle-aged adults with LEP. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Helps LEP individuals in rural areas access federal support. Would students be better off under this? — Improves access to federal educational resources for non-English speakers. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban areas typically have higher concentrations of LEP populations. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Improves access to federal services for young adults with LEP. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Benefits African Americans who speak languages other than English. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Benefits those in the middle class who have limited English proficiency.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Reduces systemic barriers for non-English speaking minority groups in accessing federal resources. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Increases access to federal aid and benefit programs for those hindered by language barriers. Does this strengthen Social Security? — Ensures LEP individuals can meaningfully access and understand Social Security benefits. Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — Includes provisions for signed communication, benefiting the deaf and hard-of-hearing community. Does this make it easier for immigrants already here to become citizens? — Improves the ability of immigrants with limited English to interact with federal agencies providing citizenship services.
- Healthcare
- Does this make the country readier for the next outbreak? — Specifically requires agencies to provide multilingual communications during public health crises. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Increases the ability of limited English proficient individuals to access federally conducted health programs. Does this make mental health care easier to get? — Improved language access may help non-English speakers access federal mental health services. Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths? — Better language access improves the reach of federal health interventions in LEP communities. Does this help veterans get medical care? — Language access mandates improve the ability of LEP veterans to navigate federal healthcare services.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Allows aggrieved parties to seek civil and injunctive remedies for lack of language access. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Creates a public complaint system and a central repository (LEP.gov) for agency language access plans. Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — Ensures AI translation tools protect sensitive personal information. Does this give the federal government more power? — Establishes new federal mandates and an enforcement role for the Attorney General over agency operations.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster? — Mandates multilingual communications during disasters, directly improving emergency response for LEP populations.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — Ensures LEP veterans can meaningfully access federal benefits and services.
- Education And Technology
- Does this give people more control over their personal data? — Requires AI translation services to comply with the Privacy Act of 1974.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — The mandate for qualified translators and interpreters may increase demand for professional language service providers. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill mandates new spending for translations, interpreters, and administrative oversight. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Implementation of language access plans and new coordinator positions will likely increase federal agency expenditures.
- 11/10/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/15/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Christopher CoonsDemocrat · Delaware
Kirsten GillibrandDemocrat · New York
Mazie HironoDemocrat · Hawaii