In January 2025, the Trump administration ended a longstanding practice of providing American Sign Language interpreters at White House press briefings, a service that had been in place since 2021. The decision marked a reversal of a policy that began during the COVID-19 pandemic, when a federal court ordered the government to include ASL interpretation for all coronavirus-related briefings in October 2020. Following that ruling, the administration voluntarily extended ASL services to all press briefings conducted by key officials, ensuring that deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals had equal access to critical government communications.
The National Association of the Deaf (NAD), along with two of its members, responded to the 2025 policy change by filing a lawsuit in federal court. The plaintiffs argued that the administration’s decision violated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a landmark civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in federal programs. Specifically, they contended that the removal of ASL interpreters excluded deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals from participating in or benefiting from federal communications, effectively denying them access to the same information available to the general public. The NAD emphasized that press briefings are a vital source of government updates, policy explanations, and public health guidance, and that the absence of interpretation created a significant barrier to full civic engagement for the deaf community.
Beyond the Rehabilitation Act claim, the plaintiffs also alleged that the administration’s decision infringed on their First Amendment rights. They argued that access to government communications is a fundamental component of free speech, as it enables individuals to receive information, form opinions, and participate in democratic processes. The NAD further asserted that the lack of ASL interpretation hindered their ability to petition the government, a right protected under the First Amendment. Additionally, the plaintiffs invoked the Fifth Amendment, arguing that the policy change denied them equal protection under the law by treating them differently from other citizens without a legitimate justification. The lawsuit sought a court order requiring the administration to restore ASL interpretation at press briefings and other public events, as well as a declaration that the administration’s actions violated federal law.
On November 4, 2025, U.S. District Judge Tanya Ali partially granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. The court ordered the administration to provide a simultaneous, publicly accessible ASL feed for all White House press briefings conducted by the president or the press secretary. In her ruling, Judge Ali found that the administration’s decision likely violated the Rehabilitation Act by excluding deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals from participating in federal programming. The court’s decision was grounded in the principle that federal agencies must ensure their programs are accessible to people with disabilities, and that the failure to provide ASL interpretation constituted a form of discrimination. However, the judge declined to extend the requirement to briefings conducted by the vice president, first lady, or second lady, nor did she mandate ASL interpretation for videos posted on White House social media platforms.
The administration responded to the ruling by filing an appeal with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on November 13, 2025. The case hinges on a critical legal question: whether the federal government can unilaterally end accessibility services that had been voluntarily provided for years. The administration argued that the Rehabilitation Act requires federal agencies to ensure their programs are accessible to people with disabilities but does not mandate specific accommodations, such as ASL interpreters.
Related: Why So Few Women Nominated For UN Chief
For now, the administration has complied with the court’s order, restoring ASL interpretation at White House press briefings while the legal battle continues. The case remains a closely watched test of disability rights in federal policy, with broader implications for the representation of marginalized groups in government and public life.
The case also highlights the importance of advocacy organizations like the National Association of the Deaf in protecting the rights of marginalized communities. The NAD’s decision to file this lawsuit reflects its commitment to ensuring that the voices of deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals are heard in the legal and political arenas.
The case raises important questions about the role of the executive branch in interpreting and enforcing disability rights laws. The administration’s argument that the Rehabilitation Act does not mandate specific accommodations reflects a broader debate about the scope of federal disability rights laws and the extent to which agencies must go to ensure accessibility.
As the legal proceedings continue, the case will likely draw further attention from disability rights advocates, legal experts, and policymakers. It serves as a critical test of the government’s commitment to inclusivity and its willingness to uphold the principles of equal access and non-discrimination.
The broader implications of this case extend to other marginalized groups who rely on federal accommodations to participate fully in society. The outcome of the lawsuit could set a precedent for how the government handles accessibility in other areas, such as education, employment, and healthcare.
