President Trump says that providing a sign language interpreter during White House briefings would “severely intrude on the President’s prerogative to control the image he presents to the public.”
Today my feed is filled with outraged responses from Deaf people and allies alike. It’s understandable because it’s an important access issue. But as a Deaf person, his reasoning was interesting to me. All I could think was: he’s not wrong.
Hear me out (pun intended).
Trump’s fear about an interpreter affecting his image isn’t something unique to him — Deaf people have that same fear every time we rely on interpreters. His concern is legitimate; his conclusion is not.
Why the Debate Over a Sign Language Interpreter at the White House Matters
Sign language interpreters have gained more mainstream attention in the last decade due to their presence in emergency televised messages—something Deaf organizations have successfully advocated for to increase access for those of us not privy to speech through the ol’ auditory waves.
This visibility has created a lot of opinions—both positive and negative.
The Trump administration stopped providing a sign language interpreter during White House briefings, which led the National Association for the Deaf (NAD) to sue for restored access. The administration argued that an interpreter could affect the President’s control over his public image and that logistical barriers make interpreting difficult during sudden press briefings.
These concerns sparked widespread public debate—including misunderstandings about why interpreters are needed when captions exist—and reveal deeper issues about access, perception, and how interpreters influence public communication.
Marlee Matlin, for example, has long worked with her own personal sign language interpreter, including during her appearance on The Apprentice in 2011. Trump interacted with her interpreter before—direct proof that having an interpreter present has never harmed a public figure’s control of their image. If anything, it demonstrates professionalism, clarity, and accessibility.
Public Misconceptions About Sign Language Interpreters
With interpreters becoming more visible, over-the-top tropes have formed. Hearing people often imagine interpreters as a very specific “type,” whether they adore them or can’t stand them. It’s a version of what many hearing people picture in their heads when they think about what a sign language interpreter does. Interestingly, both of these extreme versions frame the job requirements of the profession as being the quintessential do-gooder/helper/arty/creative type, when in fact the job requires none of those things.
The top-level sign language interpreters in the field could be complete dicks, for all I know. But I don’t, usually, because they’re doing their job. They keep themselves out of it.
Media exposure complicates this further. The interpreters who go viral are usually the ones doing arty concert interpreting or who have a “look,” not the ones whose greatest skill is their ability to disappear into the message. And how would the general public know what that looks like?
What Happened?
NAD sued the Trump administration after they stopped providing sign language interpreters during White House briefings, which was commonplace in the previous Biden administration.
The White House responded by saying the President would be unable to control his image if an interpreter were present. They also raised concerns about obtaining such a service on short notice during impromptu press briefings.
As a Deaf Person, I Understand What Trump Means
Trump isn’t wrong to feel this way — the concern about how an interpreter may affect your image is a deeply familiar one to Deaf people.
As a Deaf person, I got what he meant immediately because I have that little tinge of fear every time I get an interpreter for anything. As in any highly skilled profession, for all those who bring innate talent, superior training and outstanding ethics to the job, we do have interpreters who might not be as good, frankly.
An interpreter, especially when paired with ONE person, tends to be a first line of representation of the person they are interpreting for—Deaf or hearing. So, say I’m at a job interview—the interpreter is going to be a part of the impression I make, whether I like it or not.
That’s a lot to leave up to another individual in a high-stakes situation, whether it be interacting with a future boss or in a presidential address.
As a Deaf person, funky interpreting scenarios happens and I’ve learned to navigate. In some situations, it can cost me—a first impression, at the very least.
So, again, I get where he’s coming from–he doesn’t want to risk it.
But it can be done. And that’s what I hope to impress upon this administration.
Why a Sign Language Interpreter Is Still Needed — Even With Captions
In the past, Elon Musk, Charlie Kirk, and others have expressed not understanding why interpreters were needed when we have captions. That should be good enough. But they’re not. Here’s why:
Captions only provide written English. A sign language interpreter provides ASL, a full visual language with its own grammar, structure, and cultural context. Captions cannot show tone, emphasis, sarcasm, or intent. They frequently lag, glitch, or mis-transcribe names and technical vocabulary during fast-paced briefings—especially not ideal in emergencies when the message needs to get out to as many people as possible.
Interpreting is not just converting spoken words into signs—it is ensuring full, accurate access in the Deaf person’s primary language, something captions alone cannot provide.
When the Sign Language Interpreter Disappears and the Message Remains
As a Deaf person, I’ve run the gamut of all different interpreters and their skill levels. To the lay person, the trope is that of a do-gooder, helper assisting the Deaf person. That’s not only not providing access, that’s disempowering and can be downright dangerous. This was emphasized to me during one of the most effective interpreting experiences I’ve had—more access than I ever wanted. But it was necessary.
About 20 years ago, I was giving a professional presentation to a group of citizens at a public facility. The group showed up in response to a flyer the facility advertised that I would be there. Somewhere between seeing the flyer and the end of my presentation, one of the attendees realized the reason I was there was not the reason they thought and was pretty angry and wished to express that to me.
As I was packing up, there was emphatic ASL, body language, and angry faces telling me where I could stick my presentation for all the good it did them. How dare I not provide the service they thought and demanded I provide another solution since they came all that way.
When someone is directing these sentiments to you in such a state, you understand and respond to the seriousness of the situation. You also know to take a step back.
Because of this interpreter’s skill and adherence to their ethics to the absolute letter, that message was crystal clear to me. I was then empowered and able to respond within my own professional capacity.
Had that interpreter wavered from providing this access in any way, that would have affected my response both professionally and on a personal safety level.
What if someone were there interpreting as a good deed or to “help” me as a Deaf person? Do you think they would have interpreted this person’s harsh tone and words to me? Or would they have softened the message, protected me, involved themselves? I’ll go with the latter—because it happens. But you can’t do that and provide access. It’s a violation of a sign language interpreter’s professional ethics.
A sign language interpreter separates themselves and sends the message through, no matter what it is. That’s why we have them. They stay out of it—they have to.
Professional Sign Language Interpreters Will Faithfully Render the Message
Our nation’s capital is home to Gallaudet University, which has the largest number of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in the US, as well as esteemed Deaf faculty and staff—all of whom live and work in Washington, D.C. They use professional interpreters regularly. This means it’s a popular location for sign language interpreters to build their careers.
That said, I have no doubt this administration can find a professional sign language interpreter nearby to deliver its messages faithfully–and regularly.
With careful screening, there’s an interpreter for you, Mr. President.
My point is, he’s not wrong to feel this way. The concern makes sense—but removing interpreters isn’t the solution. Choosing the right interpreter is.
FAQs
Why can’t captions replace an interpreter?
Captions provide written English only, not ASL grammar, structure, tone, facial grammar, or nuance. They frequently lag or misrepresent content. Sometimes they simply stop. That doesn’t work when the message needs to get out.
Does the interpreter change what the President says?
No. A professional sign language interpreter is bound by a strict code of ethics requiring faithful, accurate rendering of the speaker’s message.
Why might a public figure be nervous about using an interpreter?
Because the interpreter becomes part of the visual presentation. But with proper vetting—especially in Washington, D.C.—it’s entirely possible to find a discreet, highly skilled interpreter who “disappears” and faithfully delivers the message.