Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

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

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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

Congress Bill Spotlight: No Invading Allies Act

United States Capitol building in Washington, D.C.

Getty Images, dcsliminky

Congress Bill Spotlight: No Invading Allies Act

The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.

In response to Trump’s takeover threats, Canadian coffee shops and cafés are rebranding the Americano beverage as the “Canadiano.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Raising Taxes or Cutting Spending: House Budget Committee Argues Over Debt Crisis Fix

Republican and Democratic representatives discussed the fiscal state of the United State in a House Budget hearing on May 7, 2025

Huiyan Li | Medill News Service

Raising Taxes or Cutting Spending: House Budget Committee Argues Over Debt Crisis Fix

WASHINGTON –– Republicans and Democrats clashed on May 7 at a House Budget Committee hearing over how to address the nation’s mounting federal debt—whether to raise revenue through tax increases or cut spending on federal programs such as Medicaid.

Both parties agreed that the United States was on an unsustainable fiscal path and that urgent action is needed to prevent a debt crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less
Taxing the Rich To Pay for Trump Priorities Wouldn’t Slow Economic Growth

Under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, people who earned more than $400,000 a year paid a top tax rate of 92%. Today's top rate is 37%.

Adobe Stock

Taxing the Rich To Pay for Trump Priorities Wouldn’t Slow Economic Growth

Reports of the Trump administration considering taxing wealthy Americans to pay for mass deportations and other priorities come on the heels of a new study showing how the move could generate significant revenues without slowing economic growth.

Mary Eschelbach Hansen, associate professor of economics at American University and the report's co-author, said raising tax rates for people who earn more than $609,000 a year to 44% would add 3% to the nation's tax coffers, enough to stave off cuts to popular programs serving low-income Coloradans.

"In current budget proportions, that's about enough to pay for some of the biggest, most important programs like food stamps SNAP, Children's Health Insurance Program, and also Temporary Assistance for Needy Families," Eschelbach Hansen outlined.

While 44% may seem high compared to today's top rate of 37%, it is a lot less than the 92% paid by people who earned more than $400,000 a year under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Republicans have long argued tax cuts create economic benefits for all, and leaders in Congress, including Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., the House Speaker, have said they would oppose any tax hikes.

Eschelbach Hansen argued raising the top tax rate would also increase how much of the national income pie most Americans get to keep, compared to how much the wealthiest get, by about 2%. She added years of trickle-down economics have shown only the wealthy benefit from low tax rates.

"If lowering top tax rates was going to trickle down, then you and I would be much richer than we are now," Eschelbach Hansen pointed out. "Because we have had an era of low top tax rates for decades."

Eschelbach Hansen stressed higher personal tax rates have virtually no impact on long-term economic growth, and lower personal tax rates lead to less economic growth, because people tend to take advantage of the lower rate by moving their income.

"Instead of reinvesting it in your business, where it will grow your business and grow the economy, you'll be more likely to just take it as personal income, which is not going to stimulate growth," Eschelbach Hansen explained.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Treasury Secretary Bessent Foreshadows Trade Deals With Major Economic Partners

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent talks with Rep. Chuck Edwards, R-NC, after testifying in front of the House Appropriations Committee May 6, 2025.

Athan Yanos/MNS.

Treasury Secretary Bessent Foreshadows Trade Deals With Major Economic Partners

WASHINGTON – Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent attempted to reassure Americans about the state of the U.S. economy, despite President Donald Trump’s major economic changes and the instability they have brought to the stock market.

“In the first 100 days of the new administration, we have set the table for a robust economy that allows Main Street to grow with Congress and the White House working hand in hand. We expect to see even more positive results over the next few months,” Bessent told the House Appropriations Committee last week.

Keep ReadingShow less