Trump administration imposes English-language restrictions on Mexican train crews amid safety concerns
Federal regulators say English proficiency is essential for communicating with inspectors and understanding safety bulletins; restrictions limit cross-border rail operations

The Trump administration on Friday announced new safety measures restricting Mexican train crews operating in the United States, citing concerns that limited English proficiency could hinder communication with inspectors and the understanding of safety bulletins. The Federal Railroad Administration issued letters to Union Pacific and Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited outlining the steps, which officials described as commonsense protections aimed at reducing safety risk on busy cross-border corridors.
Under the new rules, train crews from Mexico will not be allowed to operate more than 10 miles into the United States from their point of entry. Uncertified crews must stop at the customs inspection point, and interpreters must be certified under safety regulations when needed. The FRA said the measures are intended to ensure dispatchers and first responders can reliably communicate with train crews, particularly during emergencies. "Train crew operators who can’t speak English pose a significant safety risk that should not be ignored," FRA Administrator David Fink said. "Dispatchers and first responders need to know that they can communicate with train crews, especially during times of emergency."
The move comes as part of a broader safety push tied to concerns about language barriers in transportation operations. Secretary of Transportation Sean P. Duffy, speaking at a Philadelphia news conference, reiterated the administration’s stance on English proficiency in high-stakes transportation settings. In remarks quoted by officials, Duffy said, "Whether you're operating an 80-ton big rig or a massive freight train, you need to be proficient in our national language – English. If you aren’t, you create an unacceptable safety risk. These commonsense steps will ensure every train crew operator can communicate with inspectors and understand basic operational bulletins. This Department will continue to put you and your community’s safety first."
The policy shift follows a string of safety incidents associated with non-domiciled drivers. In September, the DOT announced changes to eligibility requirements for non-domiciled commercial learner’s permits and commercial driver’s licenses. The department cited concerns that language barriers can impede compliance with safety standards and operational notices. The administration’s broader emphasis on language and safety also intersected with a high-profile case in Florida, where an illegal immigrant truck driver who had obtained a limited-term CDL in California was charged after a fatal crash that killed three people during an attempted U-turn. Prosecutors said Harjinder Singh faced multiple counts in connection with the incident.
Industry observers have cautioned that enforcing English-language requirements could affect cross-border logistics and the timing of freight shipments. Rail carriers and unions have signaled a desire for clear, enforceable standards that do not unduly disrupt operations while maintaining safety guarantees. Regulatory officials said compliance will be monitored through inspections and audits at border entries and intermodal facilities, with penalties for carriers that fail to meet the new requirements.
The agency stressed that the restrictions are targeted at non-domestic crews and are not intended to affect U.S.-based employees who routinely operate across the border. FRA officials indicated that they would review the policy periodically to assess its effectiveness and potential unintended consequences for cross-border rail traffic. The department also said it would coordinate with border authorities to ensure that interpreters meeting safety standards are available where needed and that crews are briefed in advance about language requirements before entering U.S. rails.
The administration’s approach to language and safety comes amid broader debates about immigration, transportation regulation, and border policy. While the policy is framed as a safety measure for rail operations, critics may view it in the context of ongoing political battles over border control and labor mobility. Supporters argue that clear, enforceable language requirements reduce the risk of miscommunication during emergencies and complex operational procedures, potentially preventing accidents and improving response times.
As inspectors and carriers implement the new requirements, officials said the goal is to minimize disruptions while strengthening safety. The FRA noted that the rules apply to cross-border operations and are designed to ensure that any train crew arriving from Mexico can communicate with U.S. inspectors and respond to safety bulletins without ambiguity. The department emphasized that safety remains the overarching priority and that language proficiency is one of several measures designed to support a safer, more reliable freight network.

The policy’s practical impact will unfold over weeks as rail operators adjust scheduling, staffing, and on-site training to meet the new standard. While freight demand on U.S.-Mexico corridors remains robust, regulators said they would monitor traffic patterns and safety outcomes to gauge whether the 10-mile limit and certification requirements achieve the intended balance between ensuring safety and maintaining efficient cross-border service. Officials cautioned that the language provisions are intended to reduce risk, not to penalize legitimate cross-border commerce.

Overall, the administration frames the English-language requirements as a protective measure aligned with a broader safety agenda in transportation regulation. The FRA indicated that it would work with railroads and labor groups to implement the policy in a way that preserves safety while minimizing operational uncertainty for cross-border freight operations. As the industry adapts, observers will be watching closely to see whether the unique pressures of border logistics require additional refinements to the policy or supplemental training programs for crews and supervisors on both sides of the border.