This answer deals with the classical Langlands program (if you like, the Langlands program
for number fields).

There are (at least) two aspects to this program:

(a) functoriality: this is Langlands original conjecture, explained in the letter
to Weil, and further developed in "Problems in the theory of automorphic forms"
and later writing. It is a conjecture purely about automorphic forms. Langlands
has outlined an approach to proving it in general is his papers on the topic of
"Beyond endoscopy" (available online at his collected works).

A proof of functoriality would imply, among other things, the non-solvable base-change discussed in Kevin's answer.

It seems that for the "beyond endoscopy" program to work as Langlands envisages it, one would
need unknown (and seemingly out of reach) results in the analytic number theory of
$L$-functions.

(b) reciprocity: this is the conjectured relationship between automorphic forms and
Galois representations/motives. It has two steps: attaching Galois representations,
or even motives, to (certain) automorphic forms, and, conversely, showing that all
Galois representations of motives arise in this way. (This converse direction typically
incorporates the Fontaine--Mazur conjecture as well, which posits a purely Galois-theoretic criterion for when a Galois representation should arise from a motive.)

If one is given the direction automorphic to Galois, then there are some techniques
for deducing the converse direction, namely the Taylor--Wiles method. However this
method is not a machine that automatically applies whenever one has the automorphic
to Galois direction available; in particular, it doesn't seem to apply in any straightforward way to Galois representations/motives for which some $h^{p,q}$ is
greater than 1 (in more Galois-theoretic terms, which have irregular Hodge--Tate weights).
Thus in particular, even if one could attach Galois representations to (certain)
Maass forms, one would still have the problem of proving that every even 2-dimensional
Artin representation of $G_{\mathbb Q}$ arose in this way.

As to constructing Galois representations attached to automorphic forms, here the
idea is to use Shimura varieties, and one can hope that, with the fundamental lemma
now proved, one will be able to get a pretty comprehensive description of the Galois
representations that appear in the cohomology of Shimura varieties. (Here one will
also be able to take advantage of recent progress in the understanding of integral models
of Shimura varieties, due to people like Harris and Taylor, Mantovan, Shin, Morel,
and Kisin, in various different contexts.)

The overarching problem here is that, not only do not all automorphic forms contribute
to cohomology (e.g. Maass forms, as discussed in Kevin's answer), but also, not all automorphic forms appear in any Shimura variety
context at all. Since Shimura varieties are currently the only game in town for passing
from automorphic forms to Galois representations, people are thinking a lot about how to
move from any given context to a Shimura variety context, by applying functoriality (e.g. Taylor's construction of Galois reps. attached to certain cuspforms on $GL_2$ of a quadratic imaginary field), or trying to develop new ideas such as $p$-adic functoriality.
While there are certainly ideas here, and one can hope for some progress, the questions seem
to be hard, and there is no one black box that will solve everything.

In particular, one could imagine having functoriality as a black box, and asking if one can
then derive reciprocity. (Think of the way that Langlands--Tunnell played a crucial role in the proof of modularity of elliptic curves.) Langlands has asked this on various occasions.
The answer doesn't seem to be any kind of easy yes.

3more comments