Just days after President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning transgender athletes from women’s sports, the fallout has already begun.
In rapid succession, the NCAA announced a complete ban on transgender women in women’s sports, and pressure is mounting for the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to adopt similar policies.
As institutions scramble to comply with new federal regulations, student-athletes, universities, and governing bodies are left navigating a storm of legal, ethical, and logistical questions. With the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles looming, the impact of these decisions could stretch far beyond U.S. borders.
A Recap: Trump’s Executive Order and Its Immediate Impact
On Feb. 5, 2025, Trump signed an executive order titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports”, which enforces a strict interpretation of Title IX, the law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs.
Under this new directive, Title IX will now be enforced strictly based on biological sex at birth, effectively preventing transgender women from competing in women’s sports at schools and universities that receive federal funding.
The executive order is far-reaching and places pressure on private sports organizations, including the NCAA and the U.S. Olympic Committee, to align with the federal stance.
It even introduces new visa restrictions for transgender athletes competing in the U.S., which could impact international sporting events.
Additionally, schools that refuse to comply with the policy now risk losing federal funding, making the directive a powerful mechanism to enforce compliance.
The announcement immediately reignited a national debate, with supporters of the ban arguing that it is necessary to preserve fairness in women’s sports, while critics see it as an attack on transgender rights and inclusivity.
Within 24 hours of the executive order being signed, the NCAA responded by announcing its own policy change, which now completely bans transgender women from competing in women’s collegiate sports.
NCAA’s New Policy: What It Means for College Sports
The NCAA, which oversees 1,100 colleges and universities and regulates the participation of over 500,000 student-athletes, had previously allowed transgender women to compete under certain conditions.
Under the previous policy, transgender athletes were required to undergo testosterone suppression therapy for a designated period to meet eligibility requirements. However, the new policy eliminates these exceptions entirely, aligning NCAA regulations with Trump’s executive order.
Under the new policy, only athletes who were assigned female at birth are eligible to compete in women’s sports.
Transgender women will no longer be able to compete in female categories, regardless of whether they have undergone hormone therapy or met previous eligibility requirements.
However, the new policy does allow transgender women to continue practicing with women’s teams and receive associated benefits, such as medical care, but they will be barred from official competition.
The policy takes effect immediately and applies to all NCAA-affiliated schools, leaving little room for universities to implement their own more inclusive policies.
The rapid adoption of this rule has placed schools in a difficult position. Universities that fail to comply with the updated policy could risk losing their NCAA membership and, more significantly, could face the loss of federal funding due to the executive order.
In response to the policy change, NCAA President Charlie Baker defended the decision, stating that it was necessary to establish “clear, consistent, and uniform eligibility standards” rather than allowing for a patchwork of different state laws and court rulings.
By adopting a nationwide policy, the NCAA argues that it is providing clarity and certainty for student-athletes, coaches, and athletic programs across the country.
However, the decision has also raised significant concerns among advocacy groups, university officials, and legal experts who believe the ban will likely face legal challenges.
Civil rights groups have already signaled that they intend to challenge the policy in court, arguing that it violates federal anti-discrimination protections.
Potential Implications For The Olympic Games
Beyond college sports, Trump’s executive order and the NCAA’s decision have placed new pressure on the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to adopt similar policies.
With the 2028 Summer Olympics set to take place in Los Angeles, Trump’s administration has made it clear that they want the IOC to follow the U.S. example and implement a global ban on transgender women in women’s sports.
While Trump does not have direct authority over the IOC, his administration has several mechanisms to apply political and financial pressure.
One potential strategy includes implementing visa restrictions on transgender athletes traveling to the U.S. for Olympic competition, which could make it difficult for international athletes to enter the country.
Additionally, the administration has floated the idea of blocking government funding for training programs and sports initiatives that do not align with the new federal policy.
Trump’s team has also encouraged U.S. sports federations to refuse to compete against teams that allow transgender athletes, which could create tensions at international competitions.
The IOC has historically allowed transgender athletes to compete under strict hormone regulation guidelines, which require transgender women to maintain testosterone levels below a certain threshold for at least a year before competing.
However, the rising political pressure from conservative governments and national sports organizations may force the IOC to reexamine these policies ahead of the 2028 Games.
If the IOC decides to adopt Trump’s proposed restrictions, it could set a global precedent, influencing sports regulations in other countries as well.
However, if the IOC chooses to maintain its existing inclusion policies, it could create a political conflict between the U.S. government and the international sports community.
The Science: Do Trans Women Have an Athletic Advantage?
Much of the debate surrounding these policies centers on the question of whether transgender women have an inherent athletic advantage over cisgender women. While some claim that biological differences provide unfair advantages, research on the topic is far from conclusive.
A 2024 study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine found that transgender women retain some physical advantages after transitioning, particularly in terms of grip strength.
However, the study also found that their aerobic capacity (VO2 max) and jump height decrease after hormone therapy, indicating that many of the assumed athletic advantages may diminish over time.
Another 2017 review in Sports Medicine concluded that there is no direct or consistent research proving that transgender women universally outperform cisgender women in competitive sports.
While some physical traits, such as height and bone structure, remain unchanged, other critical factors, including muscle mass, endurance, and power output, are significantly affected by hormone therapy.
Critics of Trump’s executive order and the NCAA’s policy argue that these decisions are based more on politics than science.
Many note that the number of transgender athletes competing in women’s sports remains extremely small, and there is little evidence to suggest that they are dominating or outcompeting their cisgender peers at a significant rate.
Whether these policies remain permanent or are overturned in court will depend on the legal battles, public opinion, and decisions made by sports organizations in the coming months.
Trump’s executive order, the NCAA ban, and the ongoing Olympic debate mark one of the most significant policy shifts in women’s sports history. The future of transgender participation in athletics is now at a critical turning point, and the world is watching closely to see what happens next.
