All the headlines and articles about this ongoing example of political correctness and the tyranny of a minority in action are sneering and biased. “Sign language services ‘intrude’ on Trump’s ability to control his image, administration says,” is PBS’s intro. The President is right: there is no need or justification for a signer to be standing in view while the President of the United States is addressing the nation. None. Nada. Zilch. It is distracting, of course it is. I wrote this on the issue eight years ago. Just substitute President Trump’s name for Rick Scott, and that’s the bulk of my commentary today.
“Yesterday I watched Florida Governor Rick Scott give his pre-hurricane warnings, or tried to, since standing next to him was a signer for the deaf, gesticulating and making more elaborate faces than the late Robin Williams in the throes of a fit. I have mentioned this in the context of theatrical performances: as a small minority, the deaf should not be enabled by political correctness to undermine the best interests of the majority. What Scott was saying was important, and could have been adequately communicated to the deaf citizens present by the signer standing off camera. TV viewers could and should have been able to watch a text crawl following Scott’s speech, or closed captioning. Public speaking involves verbal and visual communications, and having a vivid distraction like a professional signer—many of whom feel it is their duty to add broad facial expressions to their translations—is unfair to both the speaker and his or her audience. This is one more example of a sympathetic minority bullying the majority to establish its power.”
Public communication requires directed focus. As a stage director, I was infuriated at theater companies who would force me to have some “look at me!” signer for the deaf waving his arms while I was trying to get the vast majority of the audience to look at the play. When I started my own company, no signers got near the stage.
Moreover, who knows what editorial commentary, spin, or misinterpretations a signer is conveying? A while back a signer was caught faking: he didn’t know sign language at all. If there was ever a speaker who would be foolish to trust a signer, it is President Trump.
Like so, so many terrible policies, the idea of having a signer present during Presidential addresses was championed by The Worst President Ever, or whoever it was who had his or her hand up his puppet hole.
Ethics Alarms 
“many of whom feel it is their duty to add broad facial expressions to their translations”
I think maybe you didn’t realize when you wrote this that facial expressions are integral to ASL, just as syllabic stress is integral to spoken English, or tones are integral to Mandarin.
So it’s a bit like trying to dismiss an English speaker for “feeling a duty” to add an annoying rising tone at the end of questions.
Nonetheless it distracts the audience to a point that it visually disables the hearing abled because they start watching the signer and not the speaker. Close captioning allows those with limited auditory function to focus on the speaker and have the ability to read what he is saying. Moreover, many deaf persons do not necessarily know ASL unless trained and a great many read lips simply to get by in everyday life.
Reasonable accommodations should not artificially impair the abilities of the typically abled. Close captioning fits the bill nicely and can be immediately compared by others if it matches the spoken word. We do not provide in real time neutral people to explain to the uninformed what are the key issues, limitations or advantages, nor do we provide translation services during such speeches we let pundits do that so let them provide the interpreters.
Integral or not, in performance art its called “mugging,” and to hearing audiences, it’s distracting.