US Olympic and Paralympic officials bar transgender women from competing in Olympic women's sports
The change, announced Monday with a quiet change on the USOPC's website and confirmed in a letter sent to national sport governing bodies, follows a similar step taken by the NCAA earlier this year.
The USOPC change is noted obliquely as a detail under 'USOPC Athlete Safety Policy' and references Trump's executive order, 'Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports,' signed in February. That order, among other things, threatens to 'rescind all funds' from organizations that allow transgender athlete participation in women's sports.
U.S Olympic officials told the national governing bodies they will need to follow suit, adding that 'the USOPC has engaged in a series of respectful and constructive conversations with federal officials' since Trump signed the order.
'As a federally chartered organization, we have an obligation to comply with federal expectations,' USOPC CEO Sarah Hirshland and President Gene Sykes wrote in a letter. 'Our revised policy emphasizes the importance of ensuring fair and safe competition environments for women. All National Governing Bodies are required to update their applicable policies in alignment.'
The nationwide battle over transgender girls on girls' and women's sports teams has played out at both the state and federal levels as Republicans portray the issue as a fight for athletic fairness. More than two dozen states have enacted laws barring transgender women and girls from participating in certain sports competitions. Some policies have been blocked in court by those who say the policies are discriminatory, cruel and unnecessarily target a tiny niche of athletes.
The NCAA changed its participation policy for transgender athletes to limit competition in women's sports to athletes assigned female at birth. That change came a day after Trump signed the executive order intended to ban transgender athletes from girls' and women's sports.
Female eligibility is a key issue for the International Olympic Committee under its new president, Kirsty Coventry. The IOC has allowed individual sports federations to set their own rules at the Olympics — and some have already taken steps on the topic.
Stricter rules on transgender athletes — barring from women's events anyone who went through male puberty — have been passed by swimming, cycling and track and field. Soccer is reviewing its eligibility rules for women and could set limits on testosterone.
Trump has said he wants the IOC to change everything 'having to do with this absolutely ridiculous subject.' Los Angeles will host the Summer Games in 2028.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Discover Broadcasting Figures, Sponsorship Details, and Kit Supplier Insights
Explore the comprehensive 2025 March Madness analysis, covering sponsorships, broadcasting deals, prize money, attendance, and ticketing. Key highlights include CBS's $1.1B deal, ESPN's $115M pact, and Coca-Cola's $50M sponsorship. Dublin, July 28, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Post Event Analysis - March Madness 2025" report has been added to analysis of the recent 2025 March Madness, including an examination of its sponsorship portfolio, broadcasters, ticketing, attendance, and prize broadcast deals were secured for the media rights to air the 2025 March Madness men's and women's competitions. CBS, which broadcasted the men's March Madness tournament, has an eight-year agreement with the NCAA worth $1.1 billion per year. Meanwhile, ESPN has a deal in place with the NCAA, worth $115 million per year across an eight-year period. The 2025 men's championship game between the University of Florida and the University of Houston attracted an average of 18.1 million viewers on CBS, thanks to a thrilling fourth-quarter comeback. The women's championship game between the University of Connecticut and the University of South Carolina performed strongly, with an average of 8.5 million viewers tuning in to the game on ABC.19 brands had agreements in place with the NCAA that allowed them to partner with the 2025 March Madness men's and women's competitions. The average annual sponsorship deal for March Madness 2025 was approximately $13.89 million. Coca-Cola continues to have the largest annual agreement with the NCAA. The deal, which sees it serve as a main sponsor of both championship games, is worth an estimated $50 million annually. Three brands in the restaurant sector have commercial partnerships in place with the NCAA. The analyst estimates that Pizza Hut, Buffalo Wild Wings, and Wendy's each have sponsorship deals worth $10 million of the four finalists of the 2025 national championship games has a kit supplier deal in place worth $2 million or more annually. The University of South Carolina's agreement with Under Armour is the largest annual kit supplier deal, worth $7.15 million annually over ten seasons. The University of Connecticut has the second biggest annual kit supplier deal among the four teams involved in the two title matches. They have a one-year renewal agreement with Nike worth $5.6 million annually. The third largest annual kit supplier deal is between the University of Florida and Nike. Through this deal, the university will wear the Jordan brand produced by Nike. The smallest annual kit supplier deal in place for the 2025 championship games is the University of Houston's agreement with Nike. Like the University of Florida, Houston's deal allows them to wear the Jordan brand. The analyst estimates that this agreement is worth $2 million per Highlights A detailed overview of the key facts and events that took place during the competition. The report identifies the major media and sponsorship players in the market and pinpoints the ticket prices available. Scope This report provides an overview of the event, including its sponsorship portfolio, broadcasters, and prize money. An analysis of the event's sponsors is included, along with the estimated annual values of these deals. Information regarding the event's attendance is also provided. Reasons to Buy For those wanting an in-depth analysis of how March Madness 2025 performed, in the sense of both business and popularity. Key Topics Covered: 1. Event Introduction Executive Summary Introduction March Madness - Tournament Structure Tournament Bracket - Path to the Men's National Championship Game Tournament Bracket - Path to the Women's National Championship Game 2. Media Landscape Media Breakdown Across Europe Media Breakdown Across the Rest of the World 3. Sponsorship Sponsorship Portfolio Sponsorship Breakdown Case Study: Nissan extends sponsorship of National Collegiate Athletic Association for 2024-2025 4. Kit Supplier Deals 2025 National Championship Games Kit Supplier Breakdown 5. Prize Money Men's March Madness 2025 Prize Money Breakdown Women's March Madness 2025 Prize Money Breakdown 6. Ticketing & Attendance 2025 National Championship Games Ticketing Breakdown Men's March Madness 2025 Attendance Breakdown Women's March Madness 2025 Attendance Breakdown 7. Appendix Sources A selection of companies mentioned in this report includes, but is not limited to: CBS ESPN ABC Coca-Cola AT&T and Capital One Pizza Hut Buffalo Wild Wings and Wendy's Nike For more information about this report visit About is the world's leading source for international market research reports and market data. We provide you with the latest data on international and regional markets, key industries, the top companies, new products and the latest trends. CONTACT: CONTACT: Laura Wood,Senior Press Manager press@ For E.S.T Office Hours Call 1-917-300-0470 For U.S./ CAN Toll Free Call 1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900
USA Today
21 minutes ago
- USA Today
Republicans, Democrats are held captive by extremes. Americans need a new party.
Does America need a viable third political party? Republicans and Democrats alike sound off – and actually agreed on something – in our latest Opinion Forum. In June – which yes, feels like a lifetime ago – billionaire and former first buddy Elon Musk began floating the idea of an "America Party" on the social media platform he's colonized. Originally a response to President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Musk viewed as an "insane spending bill," this new third party would "actually represent the 80% in the middle" and give voters back their "freedom." It's an interesting idea – and not necessarily new. America, as we're reminded every general election, does have more than two political parties, but those splintered factions rarely result in anything of consequence. Instead, our politics are an endless ping-pong match between Republicans and Democrats – which many Americans increasingly view as two sides of the same coin. So is a true multiparty system the way forward? And is Musk, as divisive as he is, the one to lead it? Those were some of the questions we asked USA TODAY readers for our latest Forum. We heard people from each political party and found some surprising consensus. Read their responses below. A third party isn't enough. America needs an entirely new system. America doesn't just need a third party – it needs a full-spectrum awakening. The system we're living in isn't just outdated ‒ it's misaligned with the reality of who we are today. Tradition has its place, but clinging to it out of habit keeps us locked into patterns that no longer serve us. The problems we face now are wildly different from those of the past, so why are we still trying to solve them with yesterday's blueprints? We need more than another political faction; we need a radical reimagining of how representation works. For too long, our politics have been stuck in black-and-white thinking: left or right, red or blue, us versus them. The idea that one person – usually male, usually from a singular political perspective – can fully represent an entire nation is outdated. Lived experience matters. And no matter how well-intentioned he may be, a man cannot truly fight for women the way a woman can. The same goes in reverse. Each brings something vital to the table, and that's why America needs more than just a third party – it needs a shared leadership model. Your Turn: President Trump, I supported you. Release the Epstein list – or resign. | Opinion Forum Imagine a presidency not defined by solo power but co-led by two individuals with contrasting yet complementary identities ‒ say, a woman and a man from different ideological spaces. Together, they could challenge groupthink, broaden empathy and offer layered approaches to complex issues. Conflict wouldn't be avoided ‒ it'd be used as a strength to build deeper solutions. Our most marginalized voices wouldn't be tokens ‒ they'd have champions on both sides. Sure, this idea may cause some readers to flip their lids. But history has shown us that progress doesn't come wrapped in comfort. It comes when someone says 'What if?' and dares to sketch it out loud. As for Elon Musk? He didn't build with a brain ‒ he built with money. He footed bills and took credit. He couldn't hold a thought together or support his own child for being themselves. That's not genius. That's cowardice. Power without empathy is a threat, not a solution. We don't need leaders who smile for the cameras while people suffer. We need firewalls, not figureheads. If you can't fight for people without cash behind them, you don't get to represent any of us. The Republican Party is consumed by extremism and fear tactics. The Democratic Party is fractured and too often indecisive. Both chase headlines while families struggle, health care costs explode and trust erodes. Neither party centers everyday people, and that's the core failure. — Kayleisha Miller, Coal Township, Pennsylvania Our political parties have been lost to oligarchs. We need a shake-up. We need a viable third party to shake up the status quo. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are being held hostage by the extreme right and left of their parties. We need a party that is not beholden to American oligarchs. It needs to govern with common sense and realize that compromise is not a four-letter word. As a nation, we used to value these traits. Now it's a take-no-hostage era. Do you want to take part in our next Forum? Join the conversation by emailing forum@ You can also follow us on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and sign up for our Opinion newsletter to stay updated on future Forum posts. Musk is one of the oligarchs of the United States. He is a businessman whose sole raison d'être is to make a profit. One cannot run a nation like one runs a company. Both parties are being held captive by the extreme right and left wings of their parties. The Democrats have lost their focus on the issues that mean the most to the people. They have forgotten who the working people are in this nation. They need to realize people don't want a cradle-to-grave nanny state. The Republicans have come under the spell of authoritarian governance. As much as they profess to care about the working people, they care more about the American oligarchs. — Paul Tonello, Sparks, Nevada If we had better people in power, two parties would be enough. But we don't. If there were representatives who would vote to represent the people who elected them on different issues, rather than always being in lockstep, a two-party system works very well. A multiparty system that requires different coalitions on different issues would work better than what is happening in Congress. I believe that fiscal responsibility, compassion for those in need, smaller government and stewardship of national assets would win the greatest coalition's vote. Musk's resources are important, but getting moderates from each party to be involved would be more important. Also, getting more people who are not currently involved in politics could make it very powerful. Neither party is doing anything to make the future better for our children and grandchildren. I wish we had good people instead of people who thrive on power and ego. — LaMar Stephenson, Spanish Fork, Utah It's a matter of when, not if, a third party will emerge in America The existing two-party system limits the people's choices. They coexist in a symbiotic relationship. Much like defense and plaintiff attorneys. They need each other to exist. Loyalty among the members is first to their respective party, not the Constitution. In my sphere of connections across all of America, I have yet to meet a person who does not believe a third party is a necessity. It is my belief that the time of a two-party system has passed. A new political system is a necessity. If we have a third option, more fiscally conservative and socially moderate, this country will be better served. When, not if, this happens, the legacy parties might wake up and realize they have lost touch with the American system. It is incumbent on the news media, which has also polarized, to begin an honest reporting of this movement. A third party should be fiscally conservative and socially moderate, protecting the future of America and not buying votes by borrowing from the future. The youth of America will wake up and align with a new model. Musk has the resources to overcome the start-up challenges of a viable third party. He has clearly shown his commitment to improving government and its misdirected leadership. But he is not the person to lead the party. We need a charismatic younger leader who comes from the heartland, has been in the actual world and served his country. Service in the military is important. It's too easy to place young Americans in harm's way when they have not also made that choice. Look at how few elected officials have served or have children in service. Service can take many forms that reflect their passion for serving the United States. The two parties exist to support each other. Loyalty by their members is to the party, not the country. Congress demands this loyalty. Leadership punishes those with loyalty to country above party. — Bob Jones, Dadeville, Alabama We need a political party that isn't beholden to the rich The present political parties are beholden to the rich. We need a party that also hears the people. A better party would focus on middle-class needs, education, helping college kids with their future, present and past college bills. It would focus on the environment and upholding and advancing the ideals of the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty the pursuit of happiness and equality for all. We need a party that has a little nuance on issues and looks for ways to solve problems with compromise. Our young people need affordable housing. Medical care should not be tied to employment. And we need to restore the sense of community that we have lost in some places ‒ a sense that there is something greater than me. Musk is not the person to lead a third party. He has done too much damage by reelecting President Donald Trump and with DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency. I suppose his money could be useful. The Republican Party is firmly under the control of Trump. He is corrupt, cruel and embraces chaos. The GOP should be renamed the CCCP. Most of the Democratic leaders do not know how to resist Trump. There needs to be a moral rebirth in our nation. Many are morally blind to Trump and his actions. Who are we? What does it mean to be an American? What is right and wrong? Many are under the influence of conspiracy theories and do not realize that they are being played for money. — Rick Jones, Mount Gilead, Ohio You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
USA Today
21 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump isn't gutting Medicaid and food stamps. He's fixing our broken welfare system.
President Donald Trump has preserved the core of the safety net for the truly vulnerable. He and his fellow Republicans are helping millions of able-bodied adults leave welfare and find work. It's a simple question with an obvious answer: Should Americans work as a condition of receiving welfare? More than two-thirds of Americans respond with a resounding yes. But while the principle of the matter and popular opinion are clear, our country's welfare system has been a muddled mess for decades. The biggest welfare program − Medicaid − has been disconnected from helping its 84.6 million recipients find work. And while the food stamps program technically has work requirements, they're inconsistently enforced for the 42 million people who benefit from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The result: Tens of millions of people, especially able-bodied adults, have been trapped in government dependency. But they deserve the chance to become self-sufficient. They deserve to fully share in our country's progress. And they deserve to shape that progress while pursuing their own American dream. Trump is fixing broken welfare system That is why President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act is so important. The president and Republicans in Congress have started to fundamentally fix America's broken welfare system. They're finally connecting welfare to work. Your Turn: Medicaid handouts only create dependency. Able-bodied adults should work. | Opinion Forum Unfortunately, many Americans haven't heard this side of the story. They've been told − by virtually every politician on the left as well as a few loud voices on the right − that Trump and his fellow Republicans are gutting the safety net that vulnerable Americans need. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, the president has preserved the core of the safety net for the truly vulnerable. He and his fellow Republicans are helping millions of able-bodied adults leave welfare and find work. That's the point of the safety net: to support people who've fallen on hard times, then help them move on to better times. It was never meant to be a hammock. Yet that's what it has become, trapping millions of people in generational dependency. Trump's welfare reforms are righting this wrong. To start, Medicaid now has its first federal work requirement in history. Able-bodied adults without children as well as those without young kids will now be required to work at least part time to keep receiving Medicaid. Will Trump's big bill kill people? Here's the truth about Medicaid cuts. | Opinion That is common sense. Medicaid was created to help the neediest people in society get health care. It wasn't intended to cover healthy adults who are capable of working but choose not to. It's good for them, and all of America, if they find jobs and raise their incomes. The same is true for food stamps. The president and Congress are closing loopholes that have allowed able-bodied adults to avoid work requirements. They've also put states on the financial hook for giving food stamps to those who aren't eligible. These reforms will help millions of people find work and boost their incomes. That's good for them and the rest of society. Work requirements will help people living in poverty Those who criticize these commonsense reforms aren't just missing the point. They're missing something profoundly American. We should want our fellow citizens to find good jobs, earn more income and put themselves on the path to everything from buying a car to buying a home. That's the ticket to a life of fulfillment − to the American dream. But we shouldn't want people to stay on welfare with no strings attached, especially able-bodied adults. We should want them to lead better lives. And we should believe in their incredible potential and innate ability to improve their lives. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Trump's welfare reforms are grounded in this deeply American principle. They will move millions of people from welfare to work, transforming lives in powerful ways. Virtually everyone intuitively understands that this is a good thing for everyone, including those on welfare and those of us who pay for it. The real question is why some politicians and pundits think it's bad to empower people on welfare to rise through work. Hayden Dublois is data and analytics director at the Foundation for Government Accountability. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
