By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump administration is arguing against providing real-time American Sign Language interpretation at White House events, claiming it would impede the President’s ability to control his public image. The Department of Justice, in response to a lawsuit from the National Association for the Deaf, stated that providing these services would be an intrusion. This stance aligns with the administration’s broader efforts to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, as reflected in various executive orders and departmental directives. While the White House provides alternative accessibility methods, such as transcripts and closed captioning, the administration is appealing a ruling requiring ASL interpretation, although some services have been provided.
Read the original article here
Trump administration says sign language services ‘intrude’ on Trump’s ability to control his image. That statement is a real head-scratcher, isn’t it? It’s like the administration is admitting that they value a carefully crafted public persona more than ensuring that all Americans, including those who are deaf or hard of hearing, have access to information. The core issue seems to be about control. They want to meticulously manage the president’s image, and they perceive sign language services as a potential disruption to that control, a threat to his curated public persona.
The underlying implication is that the presence of an interpreter somehow undermines the desired image. Perhaps it’s a concern that the interpreter might inadvertently (or even intentionally) convey a message different from what the administration wants to present. Or, as some have suggested, the administration might be worried that the interpreter’s actions or expressions could distract from the president’s message. Some individuals have even jokingly hypothesized that the interpreter would simply repeat the sign for “bullshit” during the president’s speeches. Considering that the president is known to talk incoherently and at times, to contradict himself, the ASL interpreter has a daunting task in front of them. It’s hard to imagine, with all that is said, and the way it is said, for the interpreter to maintain the facade of decorum and professional courtesy.
This sentiment really highlights the administration’s priorities. It seems to suggest that the president’s ability to control his image is more important than ensuring accessibility for individuals with disabilities. This stance inevitably raises questions about the administration’s commitment to inclusivity and equal access. Is this about optics, pure and simple? Control the message, control the messenger, and control the image. Some feel that the administration is showing its true colors, displaying a lack of respect for Americans with disabilities. It’s a sad reality when inclusivity is viewed as a threat to one’s image.
The narrative shifts to one of exclusion. This is a concerning pattern, especially when considering that the administration has already been accused of overlooking or actively marginalizing other groups. The idea that sign language services “intrude” on the president’s ability to control his image isn’t just an inconvenience; it can be interpreted as a deliberate move to limit access and exclude a specific segment of the population. It is perceived by some as the administration saying that they don’t want to be associated with people who are different, be they disabled, or from a different racial or sexual background.
The accusations and concerns center around the idea of a caste system, a social hierarchy that perpetuates inequality. This system operates based on factors such as race, gender, sexual orientation, wealth, and ability. For some, the push to restrict sign language services is a direct manifestation of this system. It’s seen as a way of reinforcing existing power structures and maintaining a status quo that privileges certain groups while marginalizing others. It’s a statement about who is deemed important enough to be included, and who is not.
The image that the president seemingly wants to project is one of strength and control. But, it is suggested that his public image is better when you can’t hear a word he says. The very presence of an interpreter could be seen as an admission that the president’s rhetoric is difficult to understand. It suggests that the administration might perceive the interpreter as a potential source of unwanted interpretations or even criticisms. It’s an optics-only approach, where the administration seems more concerned with appearances than with substance.
The irony here is that the administration’s actions may actually backfire. By appearing to exclude deaf individuals, they risk alienating a significant portion of the population and reinforcing negative perceptions. The administration is essentially saying that it doesn’t care about accessibility or inclusivity, choosing instead to prioritize the president’s ability to control how he is perceived. And this behavior is being met with derision.
There is a sense of disbelief that the administration would prioritize image over accessibility. Why? To what end? Some believe the administration just doesn’t want to be associated with Americans with disabilities. The administration can’t control what the interpreter might sign, such as conveying the president’s incoherence. The administration might fear that the interpreter’s actions or expressions could distract from the president’s message. The irony is, however, that with this statement, people will not mistakenly conclude that the presence of an interpreter indicates that Trump thinks Americans with disabilities should have equal access to their government.
Ultimately, the controversy surrounding the use of sign language services reveals a larger struggle over values and priorities. The administration is caught in a battle between controlling its image and ensuring accessibility for all citizens. It’s a choice that has significant implications for how the administration is perceived and how it interacts with the public. It really boils down to whether the administration values inclusivity and equal access or if it places a higher priority on presenting a carefully constructed image to the world.