Trump Administration Fights ASL Mandate, Citing Image Control Concerns

The Trump administration is fighting a lawsuit to provide American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters. It argues the mandate intrudes on the president’s image control. The lawsuit was filed in May by the National Association of the Deaf (NAD).

Legal Arguments Center on Presidential Prerogative

Government lawyers stated a mandate would “severely intrude” on presidential prerogative. They argued the president shapes his administration’s image as he sees fit. This was reported in a court filing opposing a preliminary injunction.

The administration suggests alternatives like online transcripts or closed captioning. It also claims spontaneous press interactions make consistent interpretation difficult. The White House did not immediately comment on the lawsuit’s specific arguments.

Broader Context of DEI Policy Reversals

This stance aligns with broader policy shifts overturning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) measures. President Trump signed an executive order halting federal DEI programs his first week back. Similar directives have followed in the Pentagon and State Department.

For the deaf community, the change limits real-time access to crucial information. The NAD argues it denies meaningful access to communications of national import. A federal judge recently sided with the NAD, ordering real-time ASL for certain events, but the White House has appealed.

The ongoing lawsuit over ASL interpretation highlights a fundamental clash between accessibility and executive image management. This legal fight over an ASL mandate could set a lasting precedent for how the government communicates with all citizens.

Thought you’d like to know

What is the National Association of the Deaf lawsuit about?

The NAD sued the Trump administration in May 2024. It seeks to restore American Sign Language interpretation for White House briefings and events. The group argues the lack of ASL denies deaf Americans meaningful access to important communications.

What is the administration’s main argument against providing ASL?

The Justice Department argues that mandating ASL interpreters intrudes on the president’s right to control his public image. They also state that closed captions and transcripts provide sufficient alternative access for the deaf and hard of hearing community.

Has a court ruled on this case yet?

Yes. A federal judge recently rejected several government objections. The judge issued an order requiring the White House to provide real-time ASL interpreting for certain presidential remarks. The administration has filed an appeal against this ruling.

Did the previous administration provide ASL interpretation?

Yes. The Biden administration regularly provided American Sign Language interpreters for official White House briefings and events. This practice was stopped when the current administration took office, prompting the lawsuit.

How does this relate to other administration policies?

The argument aligns with a wider rollback of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. In his first week, President Trump signed an order halting federal DEI programs, framing this lawsuit as part of that broader policy direction.