U.S. Olympic, Paralympic officials to comply with Trump ban on trans women
The new policy, announced Monday with a quiet change on the USOPC's website and confirmed in a letter sent to national sport governing bodies, follows a similar step taken by the NCAA earlier this year.
The USOPC change is noted obliquely as a detail under 'USOPC Athlete Safety Policy' and references Trump's executive order, 'Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports,' signed in February. That order, among other things, threatens to 'rescind all funds' from organizations that allow transgender athlete participation in women's sports.
U.S. Olympic officials told the national governing bodies they will need to follow suit, adding that 'the USOPC has engaged in a series of respectful and constructive conversations with federal officials' since Trump signed the order.
Story continues below advertisement
'As a federally chartered organization, we have an obligation to comply with federal expectations,' USOPC CEO Sarah Hirshland and President Gene Sykes wrote in a letter. 'Our revised policy emphasizes the importance of ensuring fair and safe competition environments for women. All National Governing Bodies are required to update their applicable policies in alignment.'
The National Women's Law Center put out a statement condemning the move.
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
'By giving into the political demands, the USOPC is sacrificing the needs and safety of its own athletes,' said that organization's president and CEO, Fatima Goss Graves.
3:15
'War on women's sports is over': Trump executive order bans trans athletes from female sports
The USOPC oversees around 50 national governing bodies, most of which play a role in everything from the grassroots to elite levels of their sports. That raises the possibility that rules might need to be changed at local sports clubs to retain their memberships in the NGBs.
Story continues below advertisement
Some of those organizations — for instance, USA Track and Field — have long followed guidelines set by their own world federation. World Athletics is considering changes to its policies that would mostly fall in line with Trump's order.
A USA Swimming spokesman said the federation had been made aware of the USOPC's change and was consulting with the committee to figure out what changes it needs to make. USA Fencing changed its policy effective Aug. 1 to allow only 'athletes who are of the female sex' in women's competition and opening men's events to 'all athletes not eligible for the women's category, including transgender women, transgender men, non-binary and intersex athletes and cisgender male athletes.'
The nationwide battle over transgender girls on girls' and women's sports teams has played out at both the state and federal levels as Republicans portray the issue as a fight for athletic fairness.
More than two dozen states have enacted laws barring transgender women and girls from participating in certain sports competitions. Some policies have been blocked in court after critics challenged the policies as discriminatory, cruel and unnecessarily target a tiny niche of athletes.
The NCAA changed its participation policy for transgender athletes to limit competition in women's sports to athletes assigned female at birth. That change came a day after Trump signed the executive order intended to ban transgender athletes from girls' and women's sports.
Story continues below advertisement
Female eligibility is a key issue for the International Olympic Committee under its new president, Kirsty Coventry, who has signaled an effort to 'protect the female category.' The IOC has allowed individual sports federations to set their own rules at the Olympics — and some have already taken steps on the topic.
Stricter rules on transgender athletes — barring from women's events anyone who went through male puberty — have been passed by swimming, cycling and track and field. Soccer is reviewing its eligibility rules for women and could set limits on testosterone.
Trump has said he wants the IOC to change everything 'having to do with this absolutely ridiculous subject.' Los Angeles will host the Summer Games in 2028.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
2 minutes ago
- CTV News
Judge issues temporary injunction against Trump administration cancellation of humanities grants
President Donald Trump, right, speaks during a news conference with Elon Musk in the Oval Office of the White House, Friday, May 30, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File) WASHINGTON — A district court judge in New York issued a preliminary injunction Friday night stopping the mass cancellation of National Endowment for the Humanities grants to members of the Authors Guild on the grounds that their First Amendment rights were violated. Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York stayed the mass cancellations of grants previously awarded to guild members and ordered that any funds associated with the grants not be reobligated until a trial on the merits of the case is held. In reaching her decision, the judge said the 'defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients' perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas. This is most evident by the citation in the Termination Notices to executive orders purporting to combat 'Radical Indoctrination' and 'Radical … DEI Programs,' and to further 'Biological Truth.'' One of the grants was to a professor writing a book on the reemergence of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1970s and 1980s. On a spreadsheet entitled 'Copy of NEH Active Grants,' the government flagged the work as being connected to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, McMahon wrote. The judge said several other history projects on the spreadsheet were also canceled in part because of their connection to DEI-related subjects. 'Far be it from this Court to deny the right of the Administration to focus NEH priorities on American history and exceptionalism as the year of our semiquincentennial approaches,' McMahon said. 'Such refocusing is ordinarily a matter of agency discretion. But agency discretion does not include discretion to violate the First Amendment. Nor does not give the Government the right to edit history.' McMahon said some of the grantees lost grants simply because they had received them during the Biden administration. The Guild filed a class action lawsuit in May against the NEH and the Department of Government Efficiency for terminating grants that had already been appropriated by Congress. The humanities groups' lawsuit said DOGE brought the core work of the humanities councils 'to a screeching halt' this spring when it terminated its grant program. The lawsuit was among several filed by humanities groups and historical, research and library associations to try to stop funding cuts and the dissolution of federal agencies and organizations. McMahon noted her injunction is narrowly tailored 'to maintain the status quo until we can decide whether Plaintiffs are entitled to ultimate relief. It does nothing more.' The judge denied a temporary injunction request from the American Council of Learned Societies, as well as several of their claims in the lawsuit. Their case included the American Historical Association and the Modern Language Association. Gary Fields, The Associated Press
Toronto Star
32 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
How can Canada fight Trump's tariffs? Take a page from his ‘One Big Beautiful Bill'
Once he signed his aggressive tax and spending strategy aka the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law, President Trump wasted no time ramping up his global tariff war. For Canada, that means facing the potential threat of a 35 per cent levy on top of sectoral tariffs. With Canada exporting more than 70 per cent of its goods to the U.S. and the U.S. exporting just over 17 per cent of its goods to Canada, President Trump knows the math is not in Canada's favour for an extended tariff war. So how can Canada fight back — and win? By diversifying trade, streamlining regulations and cutting taxes. I believe tax cuts, in particular, are extremely important to attract investment, skilled talent and help businesses and the economy grow. Prime Minister Carney is already taking steps to position Canada for a future where the U.S. plays a lesser role in our economy. How Canada is adapting If there is one silver lining in the chaos President Trump has created, it's that Canada and the rest of the world are forging new trade partnerships that do not include the U.S. The result: Canadian exports to the U.S. have decreased from 75.9 per cent in 2024 to 68.3 per cent in May 2025 — their lowest since 1997, excluding COVID — while exports to countries other than the U.S. rose for a third consecutive monthly high in May. This is likely not an outcome President Trump had anticipated and I expect this trend will continue. It's a good development for Canada and the rest of the world. The federal and provincial governments are also working to remove all interprovincial trade barriers. This could boost GDP by between three and eight per cent, lower prices by up to 15 per cent and add up to $200 billion to the national economy. Canada is taking care of business and implemented Bill C-5 to accelerate major projects such as building pipelines and infrastructure for Ontario's Ring of Fire rare earth minerals project. The case for tax reform Focusing on trade and deregulation are important and a great start, but there is a third action Canada needs to take if it wants to succeed in this trade war. And that requires taking a page from the President's landmark budget. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the One Big Beautiful Bill is about stimulating growth and increasing GDP, in part by using tax cuts to incentivize investments in U.S. manufacturing. He argues that a growing economy will offset the growing national debt. I agree. To that end, the new budget extends corporate tax breaks, provides specific tax benefits to spur the building of new manufacturing facilities, and allows 100 per cent tax writeoffs for equipment costs in the first year of purchase versus amortizing these costs over multiple years. All are good for business. For individuals, the budget eliminates tax on overtime and tips — increasing take-home pay and wages. Why would anyone in Canada want to work overtime when it could put you in an even higher tax bracket? It's not worth it. Not taxing overtime wages helps the bottom line of businesses, workers and the economy by improving productivity — a big issue for Canada. If we are going to compete against our biggest trading partner, we need tax reform, and Canada's new one per cent cut for the middle class is not enough. Carney has asked cabinet, the Bank of Canada and Crown corporations to cut spending by billions of dollars over the next three years. The focus of those cuts should be to drive growth as Canadian GDP has been flat for much of the year. Now is the time to lay the foundation for future growth. In a decade, we will look back on 2025 as the year Canada changed — hopefully for the better. If we can negotiate good trade deals around the world, open up trade domestically and become less reliant on the U.S. then that would be a long-lasting benefit for our children and grandchildren. We can't fight tariffs with tariffs, but if we can look at every policy through the lens of improving business and growth — this is how we win.
Global News
3 hours ago
- Global News
World juniors case raises consent questions, but appeal unlikely: experts
An appeal by Crown prosecutors of Thursday's acquittal of five hockey players in the high-profile world juniors sexual assault case is unlikely, legal experts say, despite questions about whether consent was properly considered. Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote were found not guilty of all charges after a weeks-long court case that centred on an alleged group sexual encounter in London, Ont., in 2018, in which the players had been accused of non-consensual sex. The Crown has 30 days to decide whether to appeal the decision to a higher court. In her ruling, Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia said she did not find the female complainant, known as E.M. in court documents due to standard a publication ban, 'credible or reliable.' She also dismissed the Crown's argument that E.M. had only consented out of fear. Story continues below advertisement 'This case, on its facts, does not raise issues of the reformulation of the legal concept of consent,' she said in her decision. While those statements and others made by Carroccia have been criticized, even legal experts who take issue with them say they may not be sufficient grounds for an appeal. 'I don't agree with the way that the judge came to her decision, but the decision is really well-reasoned,' said Daphne Gilbert, a legal professor who teaches courses on sexual assault law at the University of Ottawa. 'Appeal standards aren't just that you disagree with the result. You have to to show an error in law. And I don't see an error in law in the decision itself.' 3:56 Why the judge acquitted all 5 former Hockey Canada players in sex assault trial How the legal definition of consent factors in Melanie Randall, a Western University law professor whose research includes women's autonomy rights, said Canada's 'extremely progressive statutory definition of consent' in criminal law means 'we're not looking for the 'no,' we're looking for the 'yes.'' Story continues below advertisement In other words, she said, a judge or jury must take into account the female complainant's own mindset behind her decision to consent to a sexual act, and determine if that consent is truly voluntary, which can be a subjective assessment. The court heard during the trial that E.M., who testified she was drunk and not of clear mind, was in the washroom after she had consensual sex with McLeod on the night in question and came out to a group of men in the room allegedly invited by McLeod in a group chat. It was then that the Crown alleged several sexual acts took place without E.M.'s consent. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy Defence lawyers suggested E.M. wasn't as drunk as she said she was, wanted a 'wild night' with the players, was 'egging' them on to have sex with her and accused her of having a 'clear agenda' during the court process, which was a judge-only trial. E.M. pushed back against those claims and at points outright rejected them, saying she was coaxed into staying in the room and was disrespected and taken advantage of by the group, who she said 'could see I was out of my mind.' 'E.M. was unwavering in telling the court that she did not consent, she did not want this, she did not provide her voluntary agreement,' Randall said. Story continues below advertisement 'She explained in excruciating detail why it was complex for her to cope in that situation where she felt threatened and unsure of how to respond, and I think used a lot of strategies of appeasement and acquiescence.' 2:36 World junior trial: Players found not guilty in high-profile sex assault case Although Randall agreed that the decision itself was legally sound, she believes Carroccia 'went much further than she needed to' in the analysis of consent by ruling E.M.'s consent was voluntary. 'The judge basically said one of two things: either she knows better than E.M. does what her own subjective state was, or E.M. is a liar,' Randall said. 'I think those are two very unfortunate and damaging consequences of this decision.' Gilbert said a possible appeal could be launched on the allegation the judge was biased against E.M., but called that 'kind of a nuclear option.' Story continues below advertisement 'Usually you wouldn't accuse a judge of bias from what they write in a judgment, because they're actually making explicit the reasons upon which they made their decision,' she added. 'Bias arguments are more likely to come from attitudes in the courtroom or things that were said in the courtroom that then you felt contributed to a wrongful verdict.' She suggested the judge could have done more to rein in the defence lawyers in their cross-examination of E.M., which the complainant's lawyer Karen Bellehumeur said after the verdict Thursday was at times 'insulting, unfair, mocking and disrespectful.' 'A fair trial is one where decisions are made based on the evidence and the law, not on stereotypes and assumptions, and where the trial process respects the security, equality and privacy rights of the victim, as well as the accused persons,' Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham told reporters outside court Thursday. Toronto lawyer Lorne Honickman told Global News the Crown will likely look 'very, very closely' at the issue of consent in the judge's ruling as it determines its next steps. 'If they believe that there may have been an error there in law, they will take this 30-day appeal period or review period to determine whether or not they want to appeal,' he said. 'Perhaps — and I underline 'perhaps' a hundred times — a higher court will be looking at the issues here and making further determinations.' Story continues below advertisement 2:26 Protestors gather as judge gives ruling in World Junior hockey sexual assault trial Scientific context missing in consent argument In her ruling, Carroccia noted the Crown did not present any scientific evidence or testimony she could consider that would support its claims that E.M.'s had only consented under fear or duress — something scientific experts were also puzzled by. 'I think the complexity of how the complainant responded isn't well understood,' Dr. Lori Haskell, a Toronto-based clinical psychologist who specializes in trauma and abuse and has served as an expert witness in previous trials, told Global News. Story continues below advertisement Haskell cited neuroscientific research that has shown how the brain can shut down parts of the prefrontal cortex that affect decision-making, logic and reasoning in stressful or threatening scenarios. 'They're now in survival brain,' she said of people during situations of real or perceived threats. 'It's easy when you're not in that situation to assume you could (fight or run away), but I think we need to look at, what are similar situations? How do people respond?' She continued: 'I mean, how do men respond to hazing on sports teams? We know young men in universities have been quite traumatized with things done to them.' Without that further context, experts like Gilbert and Randall said the judge's ruling appeared to accept some of the most widely-held myths regarding sexual assault, including arguments made by the defence lawyers that E.M. had 'created a lie' out of regret and embarrassment. 'Although the slogan, 'Believe the victim,' has become popularized as of late, it has no place in a criminal trial,' Carroccia wrote at one point in her decision. 'To approach a trial with the assumption that the complainant is telling the truth is the equivalent of imposing a presumption of guilt on the person accused of sexual assault and then placing the burden on him to prove his innocence.' Story continues below advertisement 0:49 All 5 former World Junior players found not guilty in high-profile sex assault trial London, Ont., defence lawyer Phillip Millar told Global News he felt 'relief' to see that sentiment expressed in the decision. 'I was worried our judicial system has (been) going too far in terms of buying into the 'believe all victims' (idea) before the person has been determined to be a victim by the justice system,' he said. 'What was done is the law of consent was properly applied. You can't redefine consent because it's inconvenient to you, or because you want to retroactively retract it. Just because you're not proud of what you did on a day doesn't give you the ability to redefine what is consent.' Randall and Gilbert noted that acquittals mean the threshold of proving something beyond a reasonable doubt was not met by the Crown, but how Canadians and those in the public realm view the details laid out during the court process may be another question. Story continues below advertisement 'I don't think an appeal is the only strategy here,' Gilbert said. 'I think there's lots of things we can respond to this judgment with that are, you know, powerful things to respond with that aren't necessarily appealing.'
