The White House has countered a federal court order requiring American Sign Language interpretation at press briefings by President Donald Trump and his press secretary with an argument that compliance could interfere with the president’s ability to shape his public image and messaging.

The administration’s stance emerged in legal papers filed in response to a lawsuit brought by the National Association of the Deaf and joined by individual plaintiffs, which alleges that the abrupt discontinuation of sign language interpreters at official briefings denies Deaf and hard-of-hearing Americans meaningful access to vital government communications.

In November, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the executive branch to immediately reinstate real-time, publicly accessible ASL interpretation for all scheduled briefings, ruling that the absence of qualified interpreters likely violates federal disability law and leaves many who rely primarily on ASL without direct access to presidential announcements and policy updates.

The judge emphasised that written captions alone are insufficient for many Deaf Americans because American Sign Language is a distinct language with its own vocabulary and grammar.

The White House has since provided ASL interpretation for several events but filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, contending that the injunction should be limited to events scheduled with sufficient notice and that broader requirements could present logistical challenges.

In its legal response, the administration asserted that mandates for ASL interpretation at all briefings, including spontaneous events or ceremonies that are not formally designated press conferences, could constitute an intrusion on the president’s prerogative to control his message and the image presented to the public.

Lawyers for the government suggested that interpretation obligations should hinge on advance notice, noting that the White House maintains an existing contract for ASL services that requires at least twenty-four hours’ notice for deployment.

Disability advocates have rejected this rationale, pointing to precedents under the previous administration that accommodated sign language interpretation even for short-notice announcements and emphasising that meaningful access to public information is a statutory right under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

The National Association of the Deaf has characterised the lawsuit as essential to ensuring equal access to government communications for Deaf and hard-of-hearing Americans, arguing that exclusion from real-time briefings undermines their ability to follow developments on public health, national security, economic policy and other matters of public import.

The case continues to unfold as both sides await further action from the appellate court and as debate over accessibility and presidential communication priorities remains in the spotlight.