Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

A deep look at the fight over rescinding Medals of Honor from U.S. soldiers at Wounded Knee, the political clash surrounding the Remove the Stain Act, and what’s at stake for historical justice.

Getty Images, Stocktrek Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

Should the U.S. soldiers at 1890’s Wounded Knee keep the Medal of Honor?

Context: history

Keep ReadingShow less
The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

Migrant families from Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Haiti live in a migrant camp set up by a charity organization in a former hospital, in the border town of Matamoros, Mexico.

(Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end Temporary Protected Status for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, effective November 7, 2025. Although the exact mechanisms and details are unclear at this time, the message from DHS is: “Venezuelans, leave.”

Proponents of the Administration’s position (there is no official Opinion from SCOTUS, as the ruling was part of its shadow docket) argue that (1) the Secretary of DHS has discretion to determine designate whether a country is safe enough for individuals to return from the US, (2) “Temporary Protected Status” was always meant to be temporary, and (3) the situation in Venezuela has improved enough that Venezuelans in the U.S. may now safely return to Venezuela. As a lawyer who volunteers with immigrants, I admit that the two legal bases—Secretary’s broad discretion and the temporary nature of TPS—carry some weight, and I will not address them here.

Keep ReadingShow less
For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less