Charlie Kirk called out by US National Association of the Deaf as sign language controversy escalates

Charlie Kirk, the Turning Point USA founder and broadcaster, continues to face a backlash online, after he criticised the appearance of American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters at press conferences on the Los Angeles wildfires.

In a post on Twitter/X, Kirk referred to the access provision for Deaf Americans taking up “half the screen” during the briefings as a “joke”, while saying he has “nothing against the hearing impaired” – a term many deaf and hard of hearing people consider “negative” and outdated.

And on Wednesday’s (January 8) edition ofThe Charlie Kirk Show, the conservative activist complained: “Can we please just go away with half the screen during these emergency briefings to the sign language interpreters? I have nothing against, obviously, people that cannot hear, but there’s closed captioning.

“I mean, this is just over the top. We can’t do this. We gotta get back to how it used to be. It’s just too much. It’s a distraction, is what it is.

“The reason is they do these emergency briefings for fires or terrorist attacks, and you're looking at this and you're not listening. I don't like it … Closed captioning's perfectly fine.”

Except, it very much isn’t, as the live subtitles on the YouTube livestream of the LA County press conference that day mistakenly refers to the Eaton fire as “eaten”, mistranscribes the area of Altadena as “Aladen”, and gives the city of Duartes as ‘Deard’.

Kirk’s comments received widespread condemnation from the international Deaf community, with Oscar winner and CODA star Marlee Matlin praised for her six-word response on Twitter/X:

More recently, in a video published by the National Association of the Deaf on Friday (January 10), the US non-profit’s president Lisa Rose said it wishes to address the “erroneous and harmful conceptualisations” shared by Kirk, and shared an open letter it had penned to the activist.

It reads: “While we respect your right to share your views, we feel compelled to address several misconceptions in your statement about accessibility for the deaf and hard-of-hearing community.

“Your suggestion that closed captioning alone is sufficient overlooks critical aspects of deaf communication and accessibility.”

She gave the example of a hearing person listening to an emergency broadcast without any audio, instead using closed captioning and watching the ASL interpreter, and how they might find themselves “struggling to follow along while feeling that significant context is missing from your usual way of receiving information”.

The aforementioned “critical aspects” were broken down by Rose into three areas.

The president wrote: “First, [ASL] is a distinct language from English, with its own grammar, syntax, and cultural context. Many deaf individuals use ASL as their primary language and may have limited English proficiency.

“Reading and trying to understand closed captions in English during time-sensitive emergency situations can be challenging and potentially dangerous for these deaf community members.

“Secondly, sign language interpreters provide crucial visual context, emotional nuance, and cultural mediation that captions alone cannot convey. This real-time interpretation can be life-saving during emergencies, when clear and immediate understanding is vital.

“Third, your characterisation of interpreters as ‘distracting’ fails to recognise that their presence is not a matter of preference but of essential access. Just as emergency broadcasts provide audio for hearing viewers, ASL interpretation ensures equal access to critical information for deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers.”

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Rose goes on to add that it would welcome a “constructive dialogue” with Kirk about “how emergency communications can best serve all Americans, including the estimated 48 million deaf and hard of hearing individuals in our country”.

She continues: “Accessibility is not a distraction – it is an essential human right and a critical matter of public safety. Language rights are not optional; they are fundamental to the dignity and equality of all people.

“Denying access is not just a technical or logistical failure, it is a violation of human rights. Language rights are human rights.”

Kirk is yet to respond publicly to the Deaf community’s criticism.

Sign up to our free Indy100 weekly newsletter

How to join the indy100's free WhatsApp channel

Have your say in our news democracy. Click the upvote icon at the top of the page to help raise this article through the indy100 rankings.