Most States Now Ban Men From Women’s Sports
Six months following President Donald Trump’s second term, a significant number of states have enacted laws preventing men from competing in women’s sports. This development is seen as a positive step for student-athletes across the nation who are seeking equitable opportunities—an impressive turnaround for some states compared to the previous year.
A recent report by Defense Education reveals that 32 states currently prohibit men from participating in women’s sports. This compliance aligns with the Title IX rules from the Trump administration, with laws either passed or new regulations implemented by state athletic associations to enforce this policy.
Interestingly, this list has been predominantly comprised of Republican-led states, but it also includes purple and blue states like New Hampshire, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The timeline suggests this change may directly stem from policies initiated during Trump’s administration.
Upon taking office on February 5th, Trump signed an executive order that specifically barred biological males from competing in female sports at educational institutions. The administration pointed out that disregarding biological differences between genders deprives women and girls of genuine access to educational opportunities, and that federal funds would be withdrawn from non-compliant educational programs.
The implications of this executive order, along with a ruling from a federal judge earlier this year, might contribute to reversing Joe Biden’s Title IX changes that had allowed men to participate in women’s events, especially in track and field. The former guidance from the Trump administration was also critical of transgender ideology.
The Department of Education is actively investigating states and schools not adhering to these rules, which raises the prospect of federal funding cuts for non-compliant institutions. For instance, after launching a Title IX investigation in April, the Department of Education initiated actions to withhold federal funding from Maine due to its persistent allowance of men in women’s sports. Governor Janet Mills has openly stated her intent to challenge this in court. Recently, it was found that California’s educational bodies also allowed similar violations of Title IX.
Governor Gavin Newsom had previously called the participation of men in women’s sports “unfair,” yet state policies continued to enable this practice. An example is a biological male winning first place in the Women’s High Jump and Triple Jump State Championships in June.
The Trump administration is pushing for compliance through resolutions with California’s Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation to address violations of Title IX. The proposed agreement aims to allow men in women’s sports but also seeks to restore individual records and awards for female athletes, along with offering apologies to those affected by the policy.
Looking at the current landscape of Title IX compliance, it appears that the aggressive strategies of the Trump administration are making headway.
New Hampshire’s Governor Chris Sununu enacted legislation last year banning boys from competing in K-12 women’s sports. Subsequently, the state’s Scholastic Athletics Association formalized this ruling in February, similar actions were taken in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin during the same month.
Virginia’s Athletic Association also adjusted its policies following Trump’s executive order. Governor Glenn Youngkin expressed support for this transformation on social media, stating, “common sense wins.”
Meanwhile, 18 states remain non-compliant with Title IX, but with the Trump administration’s legal actions and potential funding cutbacks, changes may be on the horizon. Currently, 32 states appear to endorse policies based on biological realities, showcasing a positive outcome from Trump’s initiatives.
The situation highlights a need for leadership that prioritizes law and fairness in the face of challenges. In contrast, the Biden administration seems to cater to the demands of radical activists, whereas Trump’s approach notably centered on the safety and dignity of young girls, prioritizing their well-being over other interests.
