The Trump administration has come up with a genuinely novel—and unhinged—argument as to why the White House shouldn’t have to provide American Sign Language interpreters for press briefings.
Are you ready?
Apparently, having an interpreter would “severely intrude on the President’s prerogative to control the image he presents to the public,” and President Donald Trump has “the prerogative to shape his Administration’s image and messaging as he sees fit.”
That’s a real argument in a real court filing from the Trump administration in a lawsuit brought by the National Association for the Deaf because, when Trump’s second term began, the White House stopped providing interpreters.
No one is really clear about how, exactly, having ASL interpreters would harsh Trump’s mellow, but the administration didn’t really feel like fleshing that out.
Back in November, a federal court ordered the White House to resume providing ASL interpreters at press briefings conducted by press secretary Karoline Leavitt as well as any press conferences with Trump.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt
The Trump team doesn’t have any sound legal reasons to deny disability accommodations—they just don’t want to.
Sure, they tried a couple of normal-sounding arguments, like saying that deaf people can just read closed captions or look at a transcript later, but the administration knew those were never going to land. eHow did they know? Because the administration trotted out the same argument during Trump’s first term. It didn’t work back then either, with a federal judge ordering that an ASL interpreter had to be provided at any coronavirus-related briefing.
This time around, the administration continues to fight for its right to discriminate.
Not only has it appealed the decision, but it has also engaged in the now-familiar practice of trying to wriggle out from under the existing order, even floating the idea that it might only provide interpreters when a press briefing was announced less than 24 hours in advance.
But here’s what the judge thought of that argument: “The defendants do not explain how that agreement could have dictated the scope of the court's injunction or their obligations under the Rehabilitation Act.”
There’s also the part where the plaintiffs provided the court with information showing that the Biden Administration was able to get ASL interpreters at events with less than an hour’s notice.
What this is really about is that the Trump administration isn’t just anti-DEI—it’s anti-DEIA and very much wants to roll back accessibility accommodations. It’s deeply committed to harming disabled people and removing them from participation in public life, so of course it doesn’t want to provide interpreters.
These are the same people who think that a font is too woke.
It’s clear that the administration has decided that invoking Trump’s will is a magic skeleton key that ultimately means he gets his way.
Unfortunately, six justices on the Supreme Court routinely think that as well, which means you can’t count out Trump prevailing here based on the notion that he just doesn’t want to stand next to an interpreter.
Terrific system we’ve got here.
