This paper explores the phenomenon of language securitization within the context of USA national security policy. Language, traditionally viewed as a medium of communication and a cornerstone of cultural expression, has increasingly acquired a security dimension in national and international discourse. The paper examines the evolving relationship between language policy and state security through the lens of securitization theory. In particular, it investigates how language becomes framed as a threat to national sovereignty, cultural identity, and societal cohesion, thus prompting extraordinary state interventions. It highlights the ways in which language policy becomes an element of national security discourse when it is perceived as a potential threat to sovereignty, cultural identity, and social stability. Particular attention is given to the historical development of U.S. language policy, beginning with the adoption of the National Defense Education Act of 1958, which institutionalized language education as a tool for safeguarding state security The article analyzes the stages of language securitization, with a focus on its intensification following the events of September 11, 2001. It demonstrates how language became a key component in military response strategies, notably through the establishment of the Defense Language Transformation Roadmap in 2006. Two primary approaches to language securitization are identified: the first emphasizes the use of language to foster intercultural understanding, while the second frames language education as a military instrument to ensure strategic advantage. The importance of a critical approach to language policy in the context of national security is underscored, as such policy can either contribute to social cohesion or provoke additional conflicts. The study further examines how language policy affects the rights of linguistic minorities and considers the role of the state in their protection. Several core dimensions of language’s role in security are addressed. First, language functions as a form of soft power, enabling the manipulation of both individual attitudes and collective behavior. It serves as a conduit through which ideologies are transmitted, identities are shaped, and social norms are reinforced. This makes language a critical tool in shaping public opinion and mobilizing populations—key objectives in both domestic governance and international influence. Second, language has emerged as a strategic element in hybrid warfare, where confrontations span physical, informational, social, and cognitive domains. In such conflicts, language can be weaponized to deepen divisions, spread disinformation, and erode trust in state institutions. The case of post-Soviet states offers a compelling example, where language becomes both a marker of allegiance and a site of contestation between national and foreign influences. Third, language plays a pivotal role in the construction of identity. It is deeply tied to cultural memory, historical continuity, and social belonging. In multiethnic or multilingual societies, debates over official language status, minority language rights, and education policies often reflect deeper anxieties about national unity and cultural survival. When one language is elevated to the status of a national symbol, others may be perceived as undermining national cohesion or serving as proxies for foreign interference. This paper argues that the securitization of language is not an inevitable outcome of linguistic diversity, but a deliberate political strategy. By casting language-related issues as security threats, states can justify restrictive language laws, reshape educational curricula, and limit the use of minority or foreign languages in public spheres. These measures are often framed as necessary to defend the nation, protect sovereignty, or preserve cultural heritage. However, they also risk exacerbating internal divisions, marginalizing communities, and undermining democratic values such as pluralism and freedom of expression. The article concludes that the securitization of language is a complex process that requires a careful balance between security imperatives and the protection of human rights. By applying securitization theory to the domain of language, the paper opens new pathways for analyzing contemporary challenges in multicultural and multilingual societies. It also invites reflection on the ethical implications of using security rhetoric in cultural and educational domains, urging policymakers to consider the long-term societal costs of framing language through the lens of threat and defense.
Наталя Колісніченко (Wed,) studied this question.