U.S. government restricts sports visas for transgender women
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced on Monday it has updated its immigration policy to restrict visa eligibility for transgender women seeking to compete in women's sports.
Under the policy update, USCIS will consider "the fact that a male athlete has been competing against women" as a negative factor when evaluating visa petitions in categories such as O-1A for extraordinary ability, EB-1 and EB-2 green cards for highly skilled workers, and national interest waivers.
"USCIS is closing the loophole for foreign male athletes whose only chance at winning elite sports is to change their gender identity and leverage their biological advantages against women," said USCIS spokesperson Matthew Tragesser.
"It's a matter of safety, fairness, respect, and truth that only female athletes receive a visa to come to the U.S. to participate in women's sports."
The move aligns with broader efforts by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump to regulate transgender participation in athletics and follows similar policies enacted at the state level across the country.
The United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee last month updated its policy to align with an executive order signed earlier this year by Trump barring transgender women from competing in women's sports.
Trump signed the "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports" order in February, a directive that supporters said will restore fairness but critics argue infringes on the rights of a tiny minority of athletes.
© Thomson Reuters 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Today
25 minutes ago
- Japan Today
Justice Department to open grand jury probe into Obama officials, source says
FILE PHOTO: Former U.S. President Barack Obama attends the 60th Presidential Inauguration in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Monday, Jan. 20, 2025. Julia Demaree Nikhinson/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo By Sarah N. Lynch and Kanishka Singh U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has directed federal prosecutors to launch a grand jury probe into allegations that members of Democratic former President Barack Obama's administration manufactured intelligence on Russia's interference in the 2016 elections, a source familiar with the matter said on Monday. The Justice Department said late last month it was forming a strike force to assess claims made by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard about "alleged weaponization of the U.S. intelligence community." Republican U.S. President Donald Trump has leaped on comments from Gabbard in which she threatened to refer Obama administration officials to the Justice Department for prosecution over an intelligence assessment of Russian interference. Fox News first reported that Bondi personally ordered an unnamed federal prosecutor to initiate legal proceedings and the prosecutor is expected to present department evidence to a grand jury, which could consider an indictment if the Justice Department pursued a criminal case. The report cited a letter from Bondi and a source. A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment. Last month, Trump accused Obama of treason, alleging, without providing evidence, that the Democrat led an effort to falsely tie him to Russia and undermine his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump won the 2016 election against Democrat Hillary Clinton. A spokesperson for Obama had denounced Trump's claims, saying "these bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction." Gabbard had declassified documents and said the information she released showed a "treasonous conspiracy" in 2016 by top Obama officials to undermine Trump, claims that Democrats called false and politically motivated. An assessment by the U.S. intelligence community published in January 2017 concluded that Russia, using social media disinformation, hacking, and Russian bot farms, sought to damage Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and bolster Trump, who won that election. The assessment determined the actual impact was likely limited and showed no evidence that Moscow's efforts actually changed voting outcomes. Russia has denied it attempted to interfere in U.S. elections. © Thomson Reuters 2025.
Japan Today
38 minutes ago
- Japan Today
U.S. gov't may be abandoning global climate fight, but new leaders are filling the void
By Shannon Gibson Chinese President Xi Jinping, center, meets with visiting President of the European Council Antonio Costa, left, and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, right, at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on July 24. When President Donald Trump announced in early 2025 that he was withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement for the second time, it triggered fears that the move would undermine global efforts to slow climate change and diminish America's global influence. A big question hung in the air: Who would step into the leadership vacuum? I study the dynamics of global environmental politics, including through the United Nations climate negotiations. While it's still too early to fully assess the long-term impact of the United States' political shift when it comes to global cooperation on climate change, there are signs that a new set of leaders is rising to the occasion. World responds to another U.S. withdrawal The U.S. first committed to the Paris Agreement in a joint announcement by President Barack Obama and China's Xi Jinping in 2015. At the time, the U.S. agreed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025 and pledged financial support to help developing countries adapt to climate risks and embrace renewable energy. Some people praised the U.S. engagement, while others criticized the original commitment as too weak. Since then, the U.S. has cut emissions by 17.2% below 2005 levels – missing the goal, in part because its efforts have been stymied along the way. Just two years after the landmark Paris Agreement, Trump stood in the Rose Garden in 2017 and announced he was withdrawing the U.S. from the treaty, citing concerns that jobs would be lost, that meeting the goals would be an economic burden, and that it wouldn't be fair because China, the world's largest emitter today, wasn't projected to start reducing its emissions for several years. Scientists and some politicians and business leaders were quick to criticize the decision, calling it 'shortsighted' and 'reckless.' Some feared that the Paris Agreement, signed by almost every country, would fall apart. But it did not. In the United States, businesses such as Apple, Google, Microsoft and Tesla made their own pledges to meet the Paris Agreement goals. Hawaii passed legislation to become the first state to align with the agreement. A coalition of U.S. cities and states banded together to form the United States Climate Alliance to keep working to slow climate change. Globally, leaders from Italy, Germany and France rebutted Trump's assertion that the Paris Agreement could be renegotiated. Others from Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand doubled down on their own support of the global climate accord. In 2020, President Joe Biden brought the U.S. back into the agreement. Now, with Trump pulling the U.S. out again – and taking steps to eliminate U.S. climate policies, boost fossil fuels and slow the growth of clean energy at home – other countries are stepping up. On July 24, China and the European Union issued a joint statement vowing to strengthen their climate targets and meet them. They alluded to the U.S., referring to 'the fluid and turbulent international situation today' in saying that 'the major economies … must step up efforts to address climate change.' In some respects, this is a strength of the Paris Agreement – it is a legally nonbinding agreement based on what each country decides to commit to. Its flexibility keeps it alive, as the withdrawal of a single member does not trigger immediate sanctions, nor does it render the actions of others obsolete. The agreement survived the first U.S. withdrawal, and so far, all signs point to it surviving the second one. Who's filling the leadership vacuum From what I've seen in international climate meetings and my team's research, it appears that most countries are moving forward. One bloc emerging as a powerful voice in negotiations is the Like-Minded Group of Developing Countries – a group of low- and middle-income countries that includes China, India, Bolivia and Venezuela. Driven by economic development concerns, these countries are pressuring the developed world to meet its commitments to both cut emissions and provide financial aid to poorer countries. China, motivated by economic and political factors, seems to be happily filling the climate power vacuum created by the U.S. exit. In 2017, China voiced disappointment over the first U.S. withdrawal. It maintained its climate commitments and pledged to contribute more in climate finance to other developing countries than the U.S. had committed to – $3.1 billion compared with $3 billion. This time around, China is using leadership on climate change in ways that fit its broader strategy of gaining influence and economic power by supporting economic growth and cooperation in developing countries. Through its Belt and Road Initiative, China has scaled up renewable energy exports and development in other countries, such as investing in solar power in Egypt and wind energy development in Ethiopia. While China is still the world's largest coal consumer, it has aggressively pursued investments in renewable energy at home, including solar, wind and electrification. In 2024, about half the renewable energy capacity built worldwide was in China. While it missed the deadline to submit its climate pledge due this year, China has a goal of peaking its emissions before 2030 and then dropping to net-zero emissions by 2060. It is continuing major investments in renewable energy, both for its own use and for export. The U.S. government, in contrast, is cutting its support for wind and solar power. China also just expanded its carbon market to encourage emissions cuts in the cement, steel and aluminum sectors. The British government has also ratcheted up its climate commitments as it seeks to become a clean energy superpower. In 2025, it pledged to cut emissions 77% by 2035 compared with 1990 levels. Its new pledge is also more transparent and specific than in the past, with details on how specific sectors, such as power, transportation, construction and agriculture, will cut emissions. And it contains stronger commitments to provide funding to help developing countries grow more sustainably. In terms of corporate leadership, while many American businesses are being quieter about their efforts, in order to avoid sparking the ire of the Trump administration, most appear to be continuing on a green path – despite the lack of federal support and diminished rules. USA Today and Statista's 'America's Climate Leader List' includes about 500 large companies that have reduced their carbon intensity – carbon emissions divided by revenue – by 3% from the previous year. The data shows that the list is growing, up from about 400 in 2023. What to watch at the 2025 climate talks The Paris Agreement isn't going anywhere. Given the agreement's design, with each country voluntarily setting its own goals, the U.S. never had the power to drive it into obsolescence. The question is if developed and developing country leaders alike can navigate two pressing needs – economic growth and ecological sustainability – without compromising their leadership on climate change. This year's U.N. climate conference in Brazil, COP30, will show how countries intend to move forward and, importantly, who will lead the way. Shannon Gibson is Professor of Environmental Studies, Political Science and International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. Research assistant Emerson Damiano, a recent graduate in environmental studies at USC, contributed to this article. The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. External Link © The Conversation
Japan Today
2 hours ago
- Japan Today
Trump threatens to raise tariffs on goods from India over Russian oil purchases
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi shake hands, at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 13, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo By Kanishka Singh and Doina Chiacu Donald Trump said on Monday he will substantially raise tariffs on goods from India over its Russian oil purchases, while New Delhi said it would take measures to safeguard its interests and called its targeting by the U.S. president "unjustified." Trump said last week Washington was still negotiating with India on trade after announcing the U.S. would impose a 25% tariff on goods imported from the country starting last Friday. India has faced pressure from the West, including the U.S., to distance itself from Moscow after Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2022. New Delhi has resisted that pressure, citing its longstanding ties with Russia and economic needs."India is not only buying massive amounts of Russian Oil, they are then, for much of the Oil purchased, selling it on the Open Market for big profits. They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine," Trump said in a post on Truth Social. "Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA." He did not elaborate on what the tariff would be. Over the weekend, two Indian government sources told Reuters that India will keep purchasing oil from Russia despite Trump's threats. The sources did not wish to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter. Washington has cited geopolitical disagreements with India to explain why it has not yet been able to reach a trade deal with New Delhi. Other than India's ties with Russia, Trump has cast the BRICS group of developing nations - of which India is a key part - as hostile to the U.S. Those nations have dismissed that accusation, saying the group promotes the interests of its members and of developing countries at large. A spokesperson for India's foreign ministry said India will "take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security." "In this background, the targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable," the spokesperson added. India began importing oil from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the Ukraine conflict, the Indian statement said. The spokesperson said India's imports were meant to ensure affordable energy costs for Indian consumers and were a "necessity compelled by global market situation." The statement also noted the West's, particularly the European Union's, bilateral trade with Russia: "It is revealing that the very nations criticizing India are themselves indulging in trade with Russia." India also has been frustrated by Trump repeatedly taking credit for an India-Pakistan ceasefire that he announced on social media on May 10. The ceasefire halted days of hostilities between the nuclear-armed Asian neighbors. India's position has been that New Delhi and Islamabad must resolve their issues directly without outside involvement. Trump has reached a trade deal with Pakistan. © Thomson Reuters 2025.
