A few weeks ago there was a report that Trump might not bring a US translator for fear of leaks or something. Can't find that story now...maybe I was thinking of
this one, wherein it is written: "Obst talked about his own experience navigating presidential vulgarities and what to expect from Kim. He also mused on what might happen if Trump, a go-it-alone type who has spoken to Russian president Vladimir Putin without an American interpreter present, did the same on the Korean peninsula."
Last year, President Trump spoke with Vladimir Putin at a Group of 20 summit without an American interpreter present, relying only a Kremlin-provided interpreter.
For what reason, I don’t know — probably to keep everything to himself and his staff.
Nixon had the same habit — he relied, in virtually all important meetings, solely on the senior diplomatic interpreter for English in Moscow, Viktor Sukhodrev, whose father, by the way, was a Soviet spy in the United States for 12 years. And he also worked for the KGB. That was the person that Nixon trusted and Kissinger trusted!
Having set this example in the Putin meeting, there is always a chance that this particular White House might say, “We don’t want an American interpreter in the Kim Jong Un meeting.” I wouldn’t be surprised if that happened.
Why is it so important to have an American interpreter present?
One reason is that the interpreter traveling with the president gets to see his talking points and all documents that the president needs for this particular meeting. This is doubly important with a president like Trump. Why? Because he doesn’t read his briefing book. The packet for such a meeting — and I’ve worked hundreds of them — may be as much as between 80 and 200 pages.
The second reason, especially for a person like Trump who thinks he is one of the greatest negotiators in the world: He might insist on a one-on-one, just him and him, with the interpreter or interpreters. If such a meeting takes place, there’s one important product that comes out of it — a written record that’s always done by the interpreter. The interpreter, then, is the only American who can record this meeting for posterity, for the National Archives, for the Secretary of State to read. If you don’t have an American interpreter in there, there will be no American record.
...
How do you see a meeting playing out between Trump and Kim?
If each side brings a professional interpreter, whatever the two tell each other will come across the way it was said. But it will be a quite different meeting if there is only a North Korean interpreter present, and no American interpreter. In that kind of a meeting, our leader is bound to get into trouble.
This was published a couple of months ago, and I haven't heard anything more about it. I hope that Trump isn't stupid enough to go in without his own translator. At the same time, Trump is obviously stupid, and written transcripts never make him look good. So the translation issue is more than a sideshow.