Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Transgender Athletes: President Trump’s Executive Order is Merely Symbolic

Opinion

Transgender Athletes: President Trump’s Executive Order is Merely Symbolic

U.S. President Donald Trump signs a series of executive orders in the Oval Office at the White House on February 10, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

On February 5th, President Trump signed an executive order regarding transgender athletes and their participation in women’s sports, effectively outlawing the practice. But is it law?

While the President has tremendous power, especially when it comes to directing the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) interpretation of statutes, his executive order likely won’t survive.


In truth, it’s more of a symbolic gesture. To actually create law, the President needs Congress—and he’s not likely going to get a divided Congress to pass Transgender Athlete legislation. Even then, any legislation passed could easily be reversed with the next changing of the political winds. In reality, the President’s actions, whether one agrees or disagrees with them, will not change the status of transgender athletes competing in women’s sports. Even his calling upon governing bodies to change their respective policies on competition rules will likely only have a temporary impact.

To that point, the NCAA announced they had changed its policy to prohibit male participation in women’s sports. On the surface, it looks like a victory, however, the NCAA is dealing in legalese. Their policy toward transgender athletes has not changed, as trans-individuals identify as female. If the NCAA actually wanted to change their policy toward participation in women’s sports, it would have made it a requirement to be born a female. They didn’t do that.

Moreover, what happens when President Trump leaves office? Will the next President reverse his executive order? Just look at his own actions in reversing President Biden’s executive orders or his predecessor’s tossing out of his executive orders. It becomes a futile game, where nothing changes.

Ultimately, presidential executive orders are ephemeral. They exist in the time of that particular President. Furthermore, politicians have rarely had an appetite to tackle societal issues, especially those that are contentious. One needs to look no further than abortion.

If there is going to be any level of permanence to U.S. policy on transgender athletes competing in women’s sports, the change must come from the people. The only means this takes place is through the State referendum process, where each citizen gets a voice and vote. After all, the creation of the rule of law affects everyone, therefore it should have been determined by the masses, not the few.

For those championing President Trump’s efforts to purge women’s sports of non-female competition, they will likely find their victory is short-lived. In some respect, the few (presidents, politicians) shouldn’t be asked to make the hard choices. The people have the right and burden to determine the code of conduct they choose to live by.

In the end, whether one agrees with President Trump, his executive order on transgender athlete’s participation in women’s sports will be short-lived. It’s merely symbolic.


Dan Butterfield is the author of 11 E-books written under Occam’s Razor by Dan Butterfield—including “Prosecutorial Misconduct” as well as “Benghazi—The Cover-Up,” “Treason,” and “The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming.”

Read More

An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less
Towards a Reformed Capitalism
oval brown wooden conference table and chairs inside conference room

Towards a Reformed Capitalism

Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.

The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.

Keep ReadingShow less
Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

The Bring Our Families Home campaign brought together loved ones of Americans wrongly detained overseas to display portraits in the Senate Russell Rotunda on Wednesday, May 6.

(Jacques Abou-Rizk, MNS)

Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON – American journalist Reza Valizadeh visited his elderly Iranian parents in March 2024 for the first time in 15 years. Valizadeh’s stories for Voice of America and other U.S. government-funded outlets often criticized the Iranian regime. So before traveling, he sought and received confirmation that he would be safe from a high-ranking commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of Iran’s armed forces. However, in September that same year, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps arrested Valizadeh, and Tehran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced him to ten years in prison for “collaboration with a hostile government.”

In the Rotunda of the Senate Russell Building last week, the Bring Our Families Home campaign set up portraits of Valizadeh and 12 other Americans currently wrongfully detained overseas. The group, family members of illegitimately detained Americans, appealed to Congress to push for their safe return. Each foam poster board included the name, home state, and country of detainment. The display also included portraits of the 33 people released after advocacy by the James W. Foley Foundation.

Keep ReadingShow less
DHS Funding During the Shutdown
Getty Images, Charles-McClintock Wilson

DHS Funding During the Shutdown

When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.

Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.

Keep ReadingShow less