California girls' track athlete opens up on losing first-place title to trans competitor
The California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) Southern Section Final on Saturday saw the trans athlete take first place in the triple jump and long jump. The second-place finisher in the long jump was Katie McGuinness of La Canada High School.
McGuinness recounted the experience of losing to the trans athlete in an interview on Fox News' "America Reports."
"I remember thinking to myself, 'OK, I need to get a big jump,'" McGuinness said.
"I ran down the runway and I landed and I watched them measure my mark, and it was 18.9," she said. "And I just remember thinking that there was nothing else that I could do. That was it. And I was honestly very discouraged, and I'm a high school senior and winning CIF has always been a goal of mine, and I wasn't able to compete with someone who was genetically different than me."
McGuinness made her overall stance on the issue clear.
"There are just certain genetic advantages that biological males have that biological girls don't," she said. "Frankly, I just can't stand for that."
The second-place finisher to the trans athlete in triple jump, Reese Hogan of Crean Lutheran High School, made it a point to stand on the first-place podium spot for a quick and symbolic photo op. Footage of Hogan taking the top podium spot after the trans athlete stepped off went viral on social media over the weekend.
Hogan had just competed against the trans athlete in the prelims a week earlier. At that event, Hogan also came in behind the trans athlete in the triple jump, finishing third, and would have placed one spot higher were it not for the trans athlete. But Hogan did finish ahead of the trans athlete in the high jump.
"It's just kind of sad just watching. He's obviously a really talented athlete, we've all seen him jump and stuff, and I wish him the best of luck, but in a boys' division," Hogan previously told Fox News Digital about competing against the athlete. "It's pretty obvious the certain advantages that he has, and it's obviously just sad as a woman to watch that."
Hogan also spoke at a press conference to protest the trans athlete at the prelims and wore a shirt that read, "Protect Girls Sports."
"It was nothing against the athlete itself, it was just an issue of fairness," Hogan previously said. "Nothing that we can do, no amount of training, no amount of hours that we put in, we could never achieve the same amount of advantages that a man can have."
The CIF track and field postseason has been overshadowed by the controversy involving the trans athlete, garnering national scrutiny against the CIF and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. A U.S. Department of Education spokesperson sent a warning to the state in the days leading up to the CIF Southern Section final, referencing previous reports that CIF officials made competitors remove their Protect Girls Sports shirts.
"CIF's and Jurupa Valley High School's apparent flouting of federal civil rights law by allowing a male athlete to compete in a female California track and field [Southern Sectional Division 3 final] this Saturday, and the alleged retaliation against the girls who are protesting this, is indefensible," Julie Hartman, a Department of Education spokesperson, told Fox News Digital.
The CIF is already under a federal Title IX investigation over the state's trans-inclusion practices. The U.S. Department of Education launched an investigation against CIF in February after President Donald Trump signed the Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports executive order. The CIF was one of the first high school sports leagues in the country to announce it would defy the order.
Newsom, in a February episode of his podcast, said he believes trans athletes competing in girls' sports is "deeply unfair" but has not taken any steps as governor to change the state's policies. The state has had a law in place that allows trans athletes to compete with females since 2014.
"California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who, in a startling moment of moral clarity, recently remarked that it was 'deeply unfair' for men to compete in women's sports," Hartman continued. "Where is Gov. Newsom now? With or without the governor, the Trump administration's Department of Education's commitment is unwavering: We will not allow institutions to trample upon women's civil rights. OCR's (Office of Civil Rights) investigation into CIF continues with vigor."
The trans athlete represents Jurupa Valley High School. The Jurupa Unified School District provided a statement to Fox News Digital in response to the Department of Education's statement.
"JUSD continues to follow both California law and CIF policy regarding school athletics. Both state law and CIF policy currently require that students be permitted to participate in athletic teams and competitions consistent with their gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil's records. JUSD remains committed to protecting the rights and safety of the students we serve, in accordance with applicable state and federal laws," the statement reads.
Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Safe Spaces Are Coming Back to Brown University—All Thanks to Trump
Brown University has settled with the Trump administration, which is currently waging war on elite institutions of higher education. Under the guise of combating antisemitism on campuses—an important problem, though not one the federal government is well-suited to address—President Donald Trump's Education Department has gone after Columbia University, Harvard University, and also Brown. Brown's deal with the federal government has been described as more favorable to the university than Columbia's; Harvard has yet to reach an agreement at all, but is reportedly willing to spend up to $500 million to settle the matter. Large sums of money are at stake for all three universities, as the federal government is responsible for doling out billions of dollars in research grants. Brown is the recipient of $510 million in public funding. So it's not surprising that Brown wanted to make a deal. It's unfortunate, of course, that the Trump administration is using the threat of a funding reduction to dictate terms to what is ultimately a private institution. This is obviously a version of jawboning, in which political figures use non-legislative means to achieve some sort of policy end. When the Biden administration threatened social media companies and browbeat them into making different moderation decisions, it was swiftly recognized as a free speech issue by many conservatives, libertarians, and even some on the left. It's similarly vexing when the Trump administration—which has pledged to restore free speech and end federally driven censorship—does this. It's true that institutions of higher education are not entitled to federal funding, which, after all, is paid by taxpayers. The Trump administration, or any administration, could decide, in a moment of unusual frugality, that the U.S. is too indebted to continue sending billions of dollars to wealthy private organizations that have their own massive endowments. But the government shouldn't use the threat of a funding cut as a form of coercion. That's no different from how the Obama administration handled Title IX enforcement: Obama's Education Department instructed campuses to adopt policies that were hostile to free speech and due process, and they implied that federal research dollars would evaporate in the event of noncompliance. Indeed, the extent to which the Obama higher ed coercion blueprint has been adopted by Trump is under-acknowledged. All that said, the details of the Brown settlement are disturbing in their own right. It's true that Brown avoided some of the harsher penalties that Columbia got stuck with, and it's good that the settlement recognizes that the government has no "authority to dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech." Veena Dubal, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine, complains that the settlement includes "no barrier to government interference in faculty hiring," but the only thing it really says about hiring is that it must be race neutral. The Supreme Court has already held that race-based hiring and admissions policies are almost always impermissible, so this is hardly some unreasonable, out-of-nowhere demand. But Dubal is also concerned about a provision of the settlement that permits the feds to collect and read Brown faculty course evaluations, and that's legitimately concerning. In fact, it speaks to the most troubling aspect of the settlement: It lends itself toward the creation of a campus antisemitism police that will be laser-focused on identifying, cataloguing, and eliminating uncomfortable and offensive speech that is nevertheless clearly protected by the First Amendment. In other words, the Trump administration is directly encouraging the formation of campus safe spaces. The settlement instructs Brown to survey students on their feelings of emotional safety. The survey questions are really something, and include: "whether they feel welcome at Brown; whether they feel safe reporting anti-Semitism at Brown; whether they have experienced harassment on social media." These are vague questions that will prompt subjective answers. Social media harassment is a particularly fraught topic; what constitutes harassment? If one student is being unkind to another student on Instagram or TikTok, is it really the university's job to intervene? Brown should act to counter identity-based harassment in cases where it's egregious, criminal, or abjectly violates the code of conduct. If students are drawing swastikas on Jewish people's doors, the university should certainly intervene. But the language in the settlement is too non-specific, and almost requires university administrators to overreach. No one should be naive about this, because it's obvious what's going to happen: An anti-Israel student will go after a pro-Israel student on social media, the pro-Israel student will say they are being harassed, and Brown will feel obligated to respond. No student should be made actually unsafe—i.e., be a victim of violence—because they are Jewish, or for any other reason. But it should be self-apparent to everyone who criticized the liberal safe space trend of the 2010s that re-orienting the campus speech police around the protection of Jewish students' subjective feelings of discomfort is not a positive development. This will produce the same sort of histrionics that existed when campus authorities were dedicated to policing speech that was perceived to be anti-black, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-trans, etc. There will be an uptick in bias incident reports as students discover that they can weaponize the process against perceived enemies, as students absorb the idea that the administration is responsible for making them feel emotionally well at all times. I really thought the idea was to undermine the ideological foundations of the safe space mentality, not expand its identity-based reach. The Trump administration is erecting an edifice that would have been much to the liking of all those Play-Doh-loving, coloring-book-needing, puppy-hugging, safe-space liberals circa 2015. I'm joined by Amber Duke to discuss South Park's jokes about Trump, the latest Epstein Files news, Sydney Sweeney, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D–Texas), and more. It has begun: My Nintendo Switch 2 arrived last night. I bought the system, one extra set of Joy-Cons, the Pro Controller, and three games: Donkey Kong Bananza, Mario Kart World, and Super Mario Party Jamboree. (The grand total was in the $800 range.) I spent most of the night transferring my data from the old Switch to the new one, and I've only had time to play about 20 minutes of Donkey Kong, so the full report will have to wait until next week. The post Safe Spaces Are Coming Back to Brown University—All Thanks to Trump appeared first on
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump gives Mexico 90-day tariff reprieve as deadline for higher duties looms
By David Lawder and Aida Pelaez-Fernandez (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump gave Mexico a 90-day reprieve from higher tariffs to negotiate a broader trade deal but was expected to issue higher final duty rates for most other countries as the clock wound down on his Friday deal deadline. The extension, which avoids a 30% tariff on most Mexican non-automotive and non-metal goods compliant with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade, came after a Thursday morning call between Trump and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. "We avoided the tariff increase announced for tomorrow," Sheinbaum wrote in an X social media post, adding that the Trump call was "very good." Approximately 85% of Mexican exports comply with the rules of origin outlined in the USMCA, shielding them from 25% tariffs related to fentanyl, according to Mexico's economy ministry. Trump said that the U.S. would continue to levy a 50% tariff on Mexican steel, aluminum and copper and a 25% tariff on Mexican autos and on non-USMCA-compliant goods subject to tariffs related to the U.S. fentanyl crisis. "Additionally, Mexico has agreed to immediately terminate its Non Tariff Trade Barriers, of which there were many," Trump said in a Truth Social post without providing details. Trump is expected to issue tariff rate proclamations later on Thursday for countries that have not struck trade deals by a 12:01 a.m. EDT (0401 GMT) deadline. South Korea agreed on Wednesday to accept a 15% tariff on its exports to the U.S., including autos, down from a threatened 25%, as part of a deal that includes a pledge to invest $350 billion in U.S. projects to be chosen by Trump. But goods from India appeared to be headed for a 25% tariff after talks bogged down over access to India's agriculture sector, drawing a higher-rate threat from Trump that also included an unspecified penalty for India's purchases of Russian oil. Although negotiations with India were continuing, New Delhi vowed to protect the country's labor-intensive farm sector, triggering outrage from the opposition party and a slump in the rupee. TOUGH QUESTIONS FROM JUDGES Trump hit Brazil on Wednesday with a steep 50% tariff as he escalated his fight with Latin America's largest economy over its prosecution of his friend and former President Jair Bolsonaro, but softened the blow by excluding sectors such as aircraft, energy and orange juice from heavier levies. The run-up to Trump's tariff deadline was unfolding as federal appeals court judges sharply questioned Trump's use of a sweeping emergency powers law to justify his sweeping tariffs of up to 50% on nearly all trading invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare an emergency over the growing U.S. trade deficit and impose his "reciprocal" tariffs and a separate fentanyl emergency. The Court of International Trade ruled in May that the actions exceeded his executive authority, and questions from judges during oral arguments before the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit in Washington indicated further skepticism. "IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs, doesn't even mention them," Judge Jimmie Reyna said at one point during the hearing. CHINA DEAL NOT DONE U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the United States believes it has the makings of a trade deal with China, but it is "not 100% done," and still needs Trump's approval. U.S. negotiators "pushed back quite a bit" over two days of trade talks with the Chinese in Stockholm this week, Bessent said in an interview with CNBC. China is facing an August 12 deadline to reach a durable tariff agreement with Trump's administration, after Beijing and Washington reached preliminary deals in May and June to end escalating tit-for-tat tariffs and a cut-off of rare earth minerals. (Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu and Susan Heavey in Washington and Aftab Ahmed in New Delhi; Editing by Nick Zieminski) Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
NBC News
20 minutes ago
- NBC News
A key U.S. inflation gauge rose last month as Trump's tariffs lifted goods prices
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Reserve's preferred inflation gauge ticked higher last month in a sign that President Donald Trump's broad-based tariffs are starting to lift prices for many goods. Prices rose 2.6% in June compared with a year ago, the Commerce Department said Thursday, up from an annual pace of 2.4% in May. Excluding the volatile food and energy categories, prices rose 2.8% in the past year, the same as the previous month, which was revised higher. The figures are above the Fed's 2% goal. The uptick in prices helps explain the central bank's reluctance to cut its key interest rate this week, despite repeated demands from Trump that it do so. On Wednesday, the Fed left its key rate unchanged at 4.3%, and Chair Fed Powell suggested it could take months for the central bank to determine whether the import duties will cause just a one-time rise in prices, or a more persistent increase in inflation. Trump has attacked Powell personally and repeatedly, and did so again on Thursday for the Fed's reluctance to cut rates, calling him 'TOO ANGRY, TOO STUPID, & TOO POLITICAL, to have the job of Fed Chair.' On a monthly basis, prices ticked up 0.3% from May to June, while core prices also rose 0.3%. Both figures are higher than consistent with the 2% target. 'The above-target rise in core prices in June, upward revisions to previous months' data and the sharp rise in core goods inflation will do little to ease the Fed's concerns about tariff-driven inflation,' said Harry Chambers, assistant economist at Capital Economics, a forecasting firm. 'If these pressures persist, as we expect, a September cut looks unlikely.' The government's measure of gas prices jumped 0.9% from May to June, while grocery costs rose 0.3%. Many longer-lasting goods that are heavily imported saw clear price increases, with furniture prices up 1.3% just last month, appliances up 1.9%, and computers up 1.4%. The cost of some services fell dramatically last month, offsetting some of the price pressures from goods. Air fares dropped 0.7% from May to June, while the cost of hotel rooms plunged 3.6% just in one month. Thursday's report also showed that consumer spending rose 0.3% from May to June, a modest rise that suggests Americans are still spending cautiously. Adjusted for inflation, the increase was just 0.1%, the government said. Americans' incomes also picked up just modestly, rising 0.3% last month, a rebound after a 0.4% drop in May. But adjusted for inflation and taxes, incomes were flat in June. Consumers have been cautious all year. On Wednesday, the government said the economy expanded at a 3% annual rate in the second quarter, a solid showing but one that masked some red flags. Consumer spending, for example, rose at a lackluster 1.4% pace, after an even smaller gain of 0.5% in the first three months of the year. A sharp drop in imports in the April-June quarter, which followed a surge in the first quarter, provided a big lift to the government's calculation of U.S. gross domestic product. Earlier this month, the government reported that its more closely-watched consumer price index, its primary inflation measure, also ticked higher in June as the cost of heavily-imported items such as appliances, furniture, and toys increased.
