Connect with us

The Dictatorship

New IOC policy bans transgender women from women’s Olympic events

Published

on

New IOC policy bans transgender women from women’s Olympic events

Transgender women will be barred from participating in women’s events at the next Olympics, according to a policy the International Olympic Committee announced Thursday.

The decision follows a demand for such a rule from U.S. President Donald Trump, and comes despite objections from researchers and advocates for trans athletes.

The policy change, announced ahead of the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, aligns with an executive order Trump issued last year directing Secretary of State Marco Rubio to “use all appropriate and available measures” to ensure the IOC “amends the standards governing Olympic sporting events to promote fairness, safety, and the best interests of female athletes by ensuring that eligibility for participation in women’s sporting events is determined according to sex and not gender identity or testosterone reduction.”

The policy will apply to the 2028 Games and all others going forward and is not retroactive, the IOC said. In a video statement announcing the news, IOC President Kirsty Coventry cast the decision as a matter of fairness.

“At the Olympic Games, even the smallest margins can be the difference between victory and defeat,” she said. “So, it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category. In addition, in some sports it would simply not be safe.”

As a result of the new IOC policy, eligibility for participation in the female category will be determined by a one-time gene test — the same one World Athletics, the international governing body for track and field, introduced last year. The IOC says the test is highly accurate and nonintrusive, requiring only a cheek swab or blood test.

The policy says athletes who are deemed ineligible to complete in the female category can compete in either the male category or in sports that do not classify athletes by sex, such as equestrian.

Laurel Hubbard of Team New Zealand competes during the Weightlifting - Women's 87kg+ Group A on day ten of the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games.
Laurel Hubbard of Team New Zealand competes during the Weightlifting Women’s 87 kg+ Group A on Day 10 of the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games on Aug. 2, 2021. Chris Graythen / Getty Images

But who the policy will actually affect, and how, remains to be seen. There have been few openly trans athletes at the Olympics, Michael Waters, author of “The Other Olympians: Fascism, Queerness, and the Making of Modern Sports,” told MS NOW.

Only one openly transgender woman, Laurel Hubbard, a weightlifter from New Zealand, has ever competed at the Summer Games.

Waters said he sees the IOC’s decision as “a culmination of a broader cultural and political backlash that’s been brewing” regarding the participation of trans people in sports. The U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee also banned trans athletes from competing in the women’s category last summer, he noted, and the international skiing and boxing federations have also implemented mandatory gene testing for the same purpose.

That test has also been a source of controversy.

The test is meant to determine the presence or absence of the SRY gene, found on the Y chromosome, which triggers male reproductive development. But cisgender women and intersex people can also have the gene. At the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, Waters pointed out, eight women failed the SRY gene test before later being reinstated.

“That was one of many reasons why these tests were banned in the first place,” he said. “They were quite inaccurate, in addition to being discriminatory.”

Andrew Sinclair, the Australian researcher who discovered the SRY gene in 1990said last year that he disagreed with World Athletics’ decision to use the test to determine biological sex, calling it an “overly simplistic assertion.”

“Using SRY to establish biological sex is wrong because all it tells you is whether or not the gene is present,” wrote Sinclair, a professor at the University of Melbourne. “It does not tell you how SRY is functioning, whether a testis has formed, whether testosterone is produced and, if so, whether it can be used by the body.”

Sinclair also wrote that a male lab technician could inadvertently contaminate a test, producing a false positive.

The IOC previously mandated “gender verification” for female athletes from 1968 to 1998, but removed the requirement ahead of the 2000 Olympics in Sydney on a “trial basis.” Sinclair wrote that decision came after he and other experts persuaded the IOC to drop it.

Prior to the most recent change, IOC guidelines released in 2021 said there should not be a “presumption of advantage due to biological sex,” leaving eligibility decisions to each sport’s international governing body.

The announcement of the new policy followed an IOC review of the issue beginning in September 2024, which the body says included consultations with a range of experts and an online survey of 1,100 athletes. It marks the highest-profile decision by Coventry, a former Olympic swimmer from Zimbabwe who was elected president of the IOC last March.

It also comes as the Trump administration and its Republican allies have made a pet issue of excluding trans people — and trans women specifically — from public life, women’s sports and American history.

Trump and congressional Republicans are currently aiming to exclude trans women from the forthcoming Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum, as MS NOW recently reported. The president has also signed executive orders stating the government would only recognize biological sex rather than gender identity, that transgender troops could not serve in the military and that minors should not receive gender-affirming care. (Those orders are all the subject of ongoing litigation.)

Trump allies celebrated the IOC decision.

“President Trump’s Executive Order protecting women’s sports made this happen!” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote on X.

Advocates for LGBTQ athletes predicted the decision would lead to discrimination.

A group that represents intersex youth, interACT, said the decision could harm intersex women athletes, despite the IOC’s assurances that it will not.

“Sex testing invades all women’s privacy, forcing them to give up their personal medical and genetic information for the IOC to determine if they are ‘woman enough’ to compete,” the group’s executive director, Erika Lorshbough, said in a statement. “Any policy that intends to discriminate against transgender athletes also harms intersex women, especially those with chromosomal and hormonal variations. All women deserve the chance to pursue their Olympic dreams.”

The new policy “invites confusion, stigma and invasive scrutiny rather than clarity or safety,” said Brian Dittmeier, director of LGBTQI equality at the National Women’s Law Center.

“At a moment when women athletes continue to face real and persistent inequities — including unequal funding, fewer opportunities and pervasive harassment and abuse — it is deeply harmful to prioritize exclusion over meaningful progress,” Dittmeier added.

Julianne McShane is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW who also covers the politics of abortion and reproductive rights. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at jmcshane.19 or follow her on X or Bluesky.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

House Republicans caved — and changed the politics of government shutdowns

Published

on

In March 2025, 10 Senate Democrats voted to advance a government funding bill and avoid a government shutdown. Responding to furious Democratic voters who felt betrayed, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said“a shutdown would be 10 or 20 times worse.” Six months later, seven Democrats and independent Sen. Angus King voted to end a 40-day stalemate. Had the shutdown continued, Sen. Tim Kaine, one of those seven, argued“I do not believe Republicans would have conceded on health care.”

What a difference a few months make.

The House of Representatives suddenly passed a bill to reopen the Department of Homeland Security on Thursday, ending a 76-day funding standoff. The legislation funds all of DHS with two exceptions: Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol. Instead, Republicans will fund ICE and CBP separately through the budget reconciliation process, without the cover of Democratic votes.

The shift in shutdown politics may be a function of two circumstances, but neither is changing soon.

After federal immigration agents killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis this year, Democrats refused to fund ICE without reforms, and they demanded the agency’s funding be dealt with separately from the rest of DHS. In late March, Senate Republicans gave up on waiting for a handful of Democrats to end the filibuster, and they passed by unanimous consent a partial funding bill splitting off ICE, as Democrats demanded. The House dragged its feet for almost a month after that, but gave in Thursday and meekly passed the bill in a voice vote. “Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered,” Schumer crowed.

For the first time, the side precipitating a government shutdown neither had to cave in the end nor suffer a backlash for holding out. It seems that, at least for now, the politics of shutdowns have fundamentally changed.

It should be acknowledged at this point that unlike last year’s shutdown showdowns, this one was over one department and not the whole government. But though the shutdown was more limited, its effects were still visible to voters:  Lapses in TSA funding led to long lines at the airport, for instance. And the debate concerned immigration and border security,  issues on which Republicans typically poll well. Many of the dynamics at play in this debate, then, should carry over to future government funding fights.

The shift in shutdown politics may be a function of two circumstances, but neither is changing soon. It certainly helps Democrats that congressional Republicans can barely keep their ship afloat. The relationship between Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune is frosty at bestand while Republicans’ narrow House majority would challenge any speaker, Johnson’s tenure has consisted largely of disorganization punctuated by last-minute scrambles to push through must-pass bills.  “It’s just been a mess,” one House Republican told MS NOW’s Mychael Schnell. “We haven’t really had any guidance or direction. We’re moving from one fire drill to the next every single week, and then half the time it feels like, why are we even here?”

It also helps that President Donald Trump at this point in his term is less popular than any recent president. A president doesn’t even need high approval ratings to “win” a shutdown: When House Speaker Newt Gingrich led Republicans in shutting down the government in late 1995 when Bill Clinton was president, Clinton’s approval was around 50%. When Sen. Ted Cruz and a handful of other GOP senators encouraged the House to shut down the government in 2013, President Barack Obama’s approval was in the low to mid-40s. But in both cases, the party out of the White House ended up caving.

Trump, however, is below 40% in multiple polling averages. His war with Iran and the related spike in gas prices are just the latest errors perpetuating the slow but steady downward march of his numbers. What works in this political environment may not work in opposition to even a president of average popularity. But Trump has work to do before even getting back to average popularity.

The DHS funding bill, like the other appropriations bills earlier this year, runs through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. If Republicans pass their reconciliation bill, ICE and CBP won’t be on the table then; the GOP plans to fund the agencies for three years. And with midterms looming, Congress could punt the next round of funding bills until after votes are cast, as it did in 2024. But with even some Republicans expecting Democrats to flip the House and perhaps the Senate, a postponement could hurt the GOP’s leverage. Regardless of the date for the next funding fight, though, Democrats should reprise and even deepen the resolve they showed in this one.

James Downie is an opinion editor for MS NOW Daily.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

FEMA and the American people deserve better than Trump’s political lackeys

Published

on

Though President Donald Trump has not carried out his threat to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency, his administration has systematically weakened it during his second term. He has hollowed out its workforce, pushed out experienced staff in favor of political lackeys, dismantled preparedness programs and undermined the agency’s ability to respond when Americans need it most. Last spring, the administration announced that it had canceled billions of dollars worth of key mitigation programs that helped communities become more resilient to the effects of floods, hurricanes and other disasters.

More than 5,000 employees have left or been pushed out of FEMA since the beginning of the second Trump administration.

The elimination of those mitigation projects shifted risk onto states and local governments that lack the resources to pay for them themselves. More than 5,000 employees have left or been pushed out of FEMA since the beginning of the second Trump administration, worsening an already severe staffing shortage. Now reports suggest the Trump administration is considering even deeper workforce cuts — a highly dangerous proposal with the start of hurricane season less than a month away.

But just as worrisome as qualified people being pushed out of FEMA is unqualified people being brought in. Gregg Phillips, whom Trump appointed associate administrator of the Office of Response and Recovery in December, holds one of the most powerful positions at FEMA. It’s his  job to lead the federal government’s frontline response to hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, wildfires and other disasters. Because lives are on the line during such emergencies, the role ought to be filled by someone with relevant experience who has demonstrated a commitment to public safety, as well as has sound judgment and a steady hand. Unfortunately, it was clear before Phillips took his position that he lacks all those qualifications.

Phillips has no background in emergency management. He built his career as a political operativerising through Republican politics in Mississippi and Texas, where his time in state government was marked by controversy and ethics concerns. He later gained national prominence by promoting conspiracy theories about widespread voter fraud in the 2016 and 2020 elections.

Not only has he demonstrated a lack of commitment to public safety, he has encouraged heinous political violence. He has said former President Joe Biden “deserves to die,” and he has urged Americans to “learn to shoot” migrants who are “coming here to kill you.”

And then there’s the truly bizarre. Phillips has said he’s experienced teleportation on multiple occasions and that he was once teleported 50 miles away to a Waffle House in Georgia. Reportedly, Phillips has quarreled with Trump’s social media platform, which he has accused of suppressing posts about his teleportation claims.

With that single appointment at FEMA, the Trump administration’s lack of seriousness about its duty to protect Americans was exposed.

With that single appointment at FEMA, the Trump administration’s lack of seriousness about its duty to protect Americans was exposed. However, Phillips is not the root of the problem at FEMA; he is just a recent example of it.

Nearly half the agency’s top positions remain vacantand Trump has not nominated a permanent, Senate-confirmed FEMA administrator since he was inaugurated. Reports indicate he may nominate Cameron Hamilton, who ran FEMA in early 2025 until he was fired by Kristi Noem. But Hamilton does not have the necessary qualifications or experience to lead the agency.

Neither does Karen Evans, FEMA’s third acting administrator in a year who currently serves in two senior roles — administrator and chief of staff. Saddling an unqualified person with two important positions at the agency is more evidence of how Trump has deprioritized FEMA and its leadership. FEMA also does not have leadership in its southern regional officeswhich assist the states that traditionally see the most destruction from hurricanes.

In addition to all the above, there are growing concerns that disaster response is being politicized. The rate at which Trump has approved major disaster declarations has varied sharply by statewith Republican-led states receiving much more FEMA assistance than those led by Democrats. In some cases, Trump has denied aid to Democratic-led states even after federal assessments showed communities qualified for help.

Taken together, the Trump administration’s actions have left FEMA and communities less prepared than they have been in a generation. In any other administration, FEMA would by now have a permanent administrator, its leadership ranks filled and a reserve workforce under contract and ready to deploy. As hurricane season approaches, the stakes could not be higher.

If FEMA is to be functional and ready for disasters in the coming months, the Trump administration must course correct and stop playing around with the nation’s lead disaster response agency. To put it back on course, the administration must rebuild FEMA’s workforce, fill vacancies with experienced leaders, restore preparedness programs and ensure that disaster assistance is delivered based on need — not politics. When disaster strikes, Americans should not pay the price for an administration that refuses to take its responsibilities seriously.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Democrat representing Mississippi’s 2nd congressional district is the ranking member of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

What Hegseth’s defensive testimony revealed about his unsuitability for his role

Published

on

ByJeff McCausland

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s testimony to the House and Senate Armed Services committees this week was his first appearance before Congress since U.S. military action began against Iran.

So far, this conflict has resulted in the deaths of 14 American service members, including one whose death was not combat-related, and a reported cost of over $25 billion. These hearings were originally scheduled as a routine review of the administration’s proposed $1.45 trillion Pentagon budget for fiscal 2027 but ended up being the first opportunity lawmakers had to question Hegseth about the war.

The testimony was disturbing from the onset for his combative and argumentative style, as he immediately lashed out at lawmakers from both parties.

But this was not “routine” and was a critical moment for the nation’s security. The American people are threatened by an ongoing conflict that could easily escalate and is already having a dramatic effect on the global economy. The nation is potentially facing its greatest energy crisis in history, and Hegseth’s testimony cast doubt on his fitness for the position of secretary of defense.

The testimony was disturbing from the onset for his combative and argumentative style, as he immediately lashed out at lawmakers from both parties. Hegseth began the hearing with a formal statement that argued “the biggest challenge, the biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless, feckless, and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans.”

This was hardly a serious effort to demonstrate his understanding of defense economics or elicit support from members of Congress concerned that the proposed massive Pentagon budget — a 45% increase over 2026 — would have serious implications for the nation’s debt, which already exceeds $39 trillion. If enacted, this budget would expand the force by 44,000 troops, provide significant pay raises and boost procurement of new ships, aircraft, and weapons by 76%. Hegseth further deferred nearly every question about individual program costs.

He maintained this aggressive fashion throughout the five-hour House hearing, a stark contrast to the calm, professional responses by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dan Caine. At one point the House Armed Services Committee chairman halted the proceedings and urged Hegseth to show more respect to committee members. (Party shouldn’t matter here, but the chairman is a Republican.)

Meanwhile, Hegseth’s strategic analysis of the Iran war was questionable at best. Last June he said that strikes against Iran, conducted in conjunction with Israel (Operation Midnight Hammer) had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilitiesdespite media reports suggesting evidence to the contrary. Questioned about this obvious inconsistency during the hearing, the secretary stated that the facilities had been destroyed but that Iran still had “nuclear ambitions.”

This statement clearly undercuts President Donald Trump’s assertion that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States that allowed him, as commander-in-chief, to order an attack without congressional authorization. Oddly, both Secretary of State Marco Rubio as well as Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also have said since the war began that Iran was not enriching uranium when U.S. forces attacked in February. If that is the case, Iran did not pose an imminent threat and this conflict is a war of choice and not a war of necessity.

The Trump administration has also argued that one of the primary goals of this conflict is to ensure Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon. It is difficult to believe that a country’s nuclear ambitions could be permanently eliminated by military force alone. Such a change in a nation’s defense policy would require regime change.

During his testimony, Hegseth also said the United States is “winning” this war, apparently failing to understand that a successful strategy is more than a target list.

During his testimony, Hegseth also said the United States is “winning” this war, apparently failing to understand that a successful strategy is more than a target list. On April 8 he stated that “Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory” that by any measure had “decimated Iran’s military and rendered it combat ineffective for years to come.”

Unfortunately, many reports suggest Iran maintains significant military capabilities, possibly as much as 60% of its missile launchers and a substantial drone arsenal. Since the U.S. attack, Tehran has also seized control of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s supreme leader recently declared Tehran’s intent to retain control over shipping passing through the strait as well as maintaining its nuclear program.

Pete Hegseth is the 29th man to hold the position of secretary of defense. Three previous secretaries were retired senior military officers. This included Gen. George Marshall, who played a significant role in America’s victory in World War II and was the author of the “Marshall Plan” for European recovery. Others had been leaders of major corporations, members of Congress or CIA director. Some, like William Perry or James Schlesinger, had significant scientific backgrounds in nuclear matters.

Many secretaries were successful in this role. Others, such as Robert McNamara, were not. But all were highly qualified for what may be the most difficult job on the planet next to being president of the United States. Based on their background and experience, they were prepared to tell truth to power and provide presidents with frank counsel even when that was difficult.

Sadly, Hegseth has once again proven that he is totally unprepared and ill-suited for the role of secretary of defense. He demonstrated this during the “Signalgate” scandal when his use of unclassified communications risked placing American military personnel in harm’s way. Other examples of his poor judgment and problematic tenure include his firing of more than two dozen senior officers without reason, and these actions have been questioned by both Democratic and Republican members of Congress. Many were female or minorities, and it is widely believed that was why they were forced into early retirement. He also delivered an embarrassing speech to several hundred general officers hastily summoned to Quantico; and portrayed U.S. action against Iran in religious terms, even describing it as an “American crusade.”

Even the most loyal supporter of President Donald Trump must look at Hegseth’s record and agree that he is in over his head. He was selected for this critical post not for his expertise but, rather, for his fealty to Trump. But our nation is at a dangerous moment in its history. Amid a war with Iran, ongoing war in Ukraine and the rising threat of China, we can ill-afford incompetence in the Pentagon leadership.

But that is what we have because, at a time of war, Secretary of Defense Hegseth’s testimony was not intended for Congress — or even the American people.  It was intended for an audience of one.

Jeff McCausland

Jeff McCausland, a retired Army colonel, is a visiting professor at Dickinson College. A former dean of the U.S. Army War College, he commanded a battalion in combat and was later a member of the National Security Council. He is the author of”Battle Tested! Gettysburg Leadership Lessons.”

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending