The White House is making an unusual argument as it resists advocates’ push for sign language interpreting at press briefings conducted by President Donald Trump and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.
Providing American Sign Language (ASL) interpreting at press conferences “would severely intrude on the president’s prerogative to control the image he presents to the public,” Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys argued in a lawsuit filed by the National Association of the Deaf (NAD).
The novel argument is just one part of the White House’s case against providing ASL interpreting, and DOJ attorneys haven’t elaborated on the alleged intrusion. But it has raised concerns among advocates, and even the judge in the case.
U.S. District Judge Amir Ali issued an order in November requiring the White House to provide real-time ASL interpreting for Trump and Leavitt’s briefings, rejecting the administration’s argument that closed captioning and transcripts give Americans who are Deaf or hard of hearing sufficient access to the president’s statements.
The Trump administration immediately appealed Ali’s ruling. The White House has begun providing interpreting for more events since the court issued its injunction, although the two sides of the case have disagreed over the specifics of what’s required.
The administration has argued that complications could arise if, for example, Trump spontaneously chooses to take questions from the press at events other than briefings. The Trump administration has asked Judge Ali to limit his ruling to events scheduled at least 24 hours in advance, but the judge said the White House’s concerns were based on a misunderstanding of his order, which requires officials to “take all reasonable steps” to provide interpreting whenever they have advance knowledge that Trump or Leavitt will provide information or take questions.
The plaintiffs have also noted that President Joe Biden’s administration was able to provide ASL interpreting for events that were announced to the press pool less than an hour before Biden delivered his remarks.
“The disability laws don’t require a showing of animus or ill will toward people with disabilities to prove discrimination. The laws require that the White House provide access, and the failure to provide that access is itself discrimination,” said Brittany Shrader, director of legal services at the NAD Law and Advocacy Center. “The White House’s arguments are not a sound basis for declining to provide reasonable accommodations.”
POLITICO (12/11/25) By Hassan Ali Kanu