Trump Administration Challenges Accessibility Mandate Citing Control of Presidential Image
Washington, Saturday, 13 December 2025.
The administration appeals a federal order requiring ASL interpreters, asserting that simultaneous interpretation “intrudes” on the President’s ability to curate his specific public image and message.
Legal Arguments and Executive Prerogative
The Department of Justice attorneys, representing the executive branch, have taken a firm stance against a court mandate issued on December 5, 2025, which ordered the White House to provide real-time American Sign Language (ASL) interpreting for remarks made by President Trump and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt [1]. In filings submitted to federal court, the administration contends that such a requirement would “severely intrude on the President’s prerogative to control the image he presents to the public” [1]. This legal maneuver follows a lawsuit filed by the National Association for the Deaf (NAD) in May 2025, which challenged the cessation of ASL interpretation services—a service the organization also fought to secure during President Trump’s first term regarding COVID-19 briefings [1].
Technological Alternatives vs. Inclusivity
Central to the administration’s defense is the argument that modern technology renders the physical presence of an interpreter unnecessary for accessibility. Government attorneys have suggested that online transcripts and closed captioning serve as sufficient alternatives for the Deaf and hard-of-hearing community to access the President’s statements [1]. This position was previewed in June 2025, when government lawyers questioned the necessity of providing interpretative services across various government branches [1]. Conversely, advocates argue that real-time interpretation is essential for full access, noting that Washington, D.C., is home to Gallaudet University and a significant population of ASL users, a reality acknowledged by local officials like Mayor Muriel Bowser, who utilizes interpreters for public appearances [1].
Broader Policy Context: The DEI Rollback
The resistance to the ASL mandate appears to align with a wider administrative effort to dismantle initiatives associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). In January 2025, shortly after the inauguration, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued an order declaring DEI policies “incompatible” with the Defense Department’s mission [1]. Furthermore, President Trump signed an executive order halting DEI programs across the U.S. government [1]. These ideological shifts have permeated various levels of federal operations; for instance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently mandated a return to Times New Roman font for diplomatic correspondence, explicitly reversing the Biden administration’s 2023 shift to Calibri, which Rubio argued was a product of misguided DEI policies [1].
Current Status of the Dispute
As of December 13, 2025, the legal standoff remains active. Following the federal judge’s order in November 2025—and the subsequent specific directive on December 5, 2025—the White House has launched an appeal, disputing the extent of the services required [1]. While the court has sided with the plaintiffs regarding the necessity of access, the administration remains steadfast in its refusal to alter the visual framing of presidential addresses. On December 10, 2025, a White House spokesperson declined to comment on the ongoing litigation, leaving the final resolution regarding the balance between executive image control and accessibility mandates in the hands of the appellate courts [1].