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

The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less