Progressive Sen. Ruben Gallego admits ‘legitimate' concerns about trans athletes in girl's sports
Freshman Sen. Ruben Gallego, seen by some observers as a possible 2028 Democratic dark horse, has admitted that there are 'legitimate' issues with male-to-female transgender athletes competing in women's and girl's sports, splitting from many of his fellow progressives.
'As a parent of a daughter, I think it's legitimate that parents are worried about the safety of their daughters, and I think it's legitimate for us to be worried also about fair competition,' Gallego (D-Ariz.) told The Dispatch in an interview published Thursday.
'And I think the parents of these trans children also are worried, legitimately, about the health and wellness of their kids.'
Advertisement
Gallego, 45, went on to argue that the issue of transgender competition in 'some' school sports should be left to 'local institutions,' without elaborating.
3 Sen. Ruben Gallego tried to stake out middle ground on the thorny issue.
CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
3 Democrats have been under pressure from progressives to allow transgenders to compete in women's sports.
Getty Images
Advertisement
In other cases, the senator added, the message to trans would-be competitors should be: 'Hey, listen, we love you. We want you to be part of our community, but this is just the one place you can't play, and let's find other activities for you to be involved.'
Gallego and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan were the only two Democrats to win Senate seats in states that President Trump won in the 2024 election.
The Arizonan is not the only Democrat to distance themselves from most progressives on the issue of protecting women's sports.
'I have two girls, I don't want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I'm supposed to be afraid to say that,' Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) said days after the election, drawing backlash from left-wingers.
Advertisement
3 California Gov. Gavin Newsom admitted that allow transgenders to compete in women's sports seems 'deeply unfair.'
AP
Earlier this year, California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, another rumored 2028 aspirant, admitted that allowing transgender competitors in women's sports is 'deeply unfair.'
'I think it's an issue of fairness; I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness — it's deeply unfair,' the governor said on his podcast during a March interview with conservative pundit Charlie Kirk.
Advertisement
Earlier this week, the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), which governs high school athletics in the Golden State, tweaked eligibility rules for a track and field championship to allow 'any biological female student-athlete' into the event who failed to qualify because they were defeated by transgender athletes.
Trump had threatened to cut federal funding for California over the issue and the Justice Department opened a Title IX investigation into the matter Wednesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
14 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Bill Maher Finds Common Ground With Donald Trump: 'Kernel of a Good Idea'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Comedian Bill Maher touted some common ground with President Donald Trump during his Friday evening TV show, saying the White House's targeting of Harvard University is a "kernel of a good idea." Maher described the elite Ivy League institution as an "a**hole factory," and said he'd long been critical of the university. Newsweek has reached out to Harvard and the White House via email for comment on Saturday morning. Why It Matters Maher has been a consistent Trump critic, routinely mocking the president for years on his HBO show Real Time with Bill Maher. At the same time, while the comedian continues to identify as a Democrat, he often criticizes the "woke" views of many in his political party. He also regularly invites Republicans on his show, and in late March had dinner with Trump at the White House. After the meeting, Maher spoke favorably of the president's personal interactions with him, sparking criticism from many liberal critics. Trump's recent actions against Harvard have drawn backlash from Democrats and other critics. However, Maher has suggested some agreement with the president on the issue. What to Know During his Friday evening show, Maher hosted CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Representative Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat, on his panel. During the discussion, the comedian brought up the Trump administration's actions against Harvard. "The Harvard situation. Trump has declared full scale war on Harvard. And like so many things he does, there's a kernel of a good idea there. I mean, I've been s****ing on Harvard long before he was," Maher said. Tapper jumped in, quipping, "Well, you went to Cornell [University], so I mean...." "That's not why," Maher responded, with the exchange drawing laughter from the audience and the comedian. "No, it's because Harvard is an a**hole factory in a lot of ways, that produces smirking f*** faces." He then asked Moulton, "Are you from Harvard?" To which Tapper pointed out that the Democratic congressman has "three degrees from Harvard." "Present company accepted," Maher quickly added. Bill Maher attends the 2025 Vanity Fair Oscar Party at Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts on March 2 in Beverly Hills, California. Inset: President Donald Trump is seen at the Memorial Amphitheatre in... Bill Maher attends the 2025 Vanity Fair Oscar Party at Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts on March 2 in Beverly Hills, California. Inset: President Donald Trump is seen at the Memorial Amphitheatre in Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia, on May 26. More Dia Dipasupil/FilmMagic/Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images How Trump Is Going After Harvard The dispute between Trump and Harvard University began earlier this year when his administration accused Harvard of failing to adequately address antisemitism on its campus, citing "pro-terrorist conduct" at protests. The administration responded by freezing more than $2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard in April and has since attempted to terminate the university's ability to enroll international students through the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). The State Department is now also investigating the B-1 (business visas) and B-2 (tourist visas) associated with Harvard University, according to Fox News. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) made moves to eliminate Harvard's student visa program, saying the university had refused to comply with a request to provide behavioral records of student visa holders. Trump, meanwhile, has demanded the names and countries of origin of all international students, saying that federal support entitled the government to such information. He wrote on Truth Social last Sunday: "We want to know who those foreign students are, a reasonable request since we give Harvard BILLIONS OF DOLLARS." Harvard insists it has complied with government requests, "despite the unprecedented nature and scope of the demand." On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs stepped in and issued a preliminary injunction, which stopped the Trump administration from revoking the school's SEVP certification without first following the legally mandated procedures. What People Are Saying President Donald Trump to reporters on Wednesday: "Harvard's got to behave themselves. Harvard is treating our country with great disrespect. And all they're doing is getting in deeper and deeper and got to behave themselves, you know. I'm for the for Harvard. I want Harvard to do well. I want Harvard to be great again, probably, because how could it be great? How could it great." Harvard President Alan M. Garber in a statement after a court win this week: "This is a critical step to protect the rights and opportunities of our international students and scholars, who are vital to the University's mission and community. Many among us are likely to have additional concerns and questions. Important updates and guidance will continue to be provided by the Harvard International Office as they become available." Senator John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, on X, formerly Twitter, on Friday: "Harvard's attitude is, 'We can do what we want, and we have a constitutional right to your money.' I think they're wrong, and I think they're going to find out how wrong they are." Fox News contributor Jessica Tarlov, a Democrat, wrote on X on Thursday in response to attacks on Harvard: "When you deport young people and cancel the visas of their friends, you become public enemy number one very quickly." Representative Seth Moulton wrote on X on Wednesday: "Trump's sad obsession with schools he doesn't like continues. These policies will mean that we are less competitive, less credible, and less innovative in the future. Nobody wins." What Happens Next? The Trump administration's actions targeting Harvard continue to be litigated in the courts.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pritzker to consider Illinois bill mandating gun owners lock up firearms
A bill that would require gun owners to keep any firearms in a locked box whenever a minor is present will soon head to Gov. JB Pritzker. Senate Bill 8, also referred to as the Safe Gun Storage Act, is the latest gun safety measure pushed by Democrats in the General Assembly. It passed the House 69-40, with Republican lawmakers warning that it could be found unconstitutional if challenged in court. The bill mandates that gun owners store their firearms in a secure, locked box in any place where they know or 'reasonably should know' that a minor without permission to access a firearm, an at-risk person or someone who is prohibited from obtaining a firearm can access the weapon. Gun owners who violate the act would be subject to civil penalties. The law would apply to both handguns and long guns, such as rifles and shotguns. Under the state's current criminal code, firearm owners are required to store their guns in a place that's inaccessible to a child under the age of 14 – SB8 raises the age requirement to a child under 18 and mandates that the gun must be locked away or equipped with a device making it temporarily inoperable. It also defines an at-risk person as someone who has shown behavior or made statements that a 'reasonable person' would consider indicative that the individual may physically harm themselves or others. 'An estimated 30 million children in our country live in a home with at least one firearm, with 4.6 million children living in homes with unlocked and loaded guns,' bill sponsor in the House, Rep. Maura Hirschauer, D-Batavia, said during floor debate. 'We are all familiar with the chilling statistics that guns are the No. 1 cause of death for our children in the United States.' The bill exempts firearms carried on a person who has a concealed carry license. The gun owner also would not be liable if a minor, at-risk or prohibited person uses the firearm in self-defense or uses it after accessing it illegally – for instance, in circumstances like breaking and entering. The Safe Gun Storage Act also makes changes to a variety of existing Illinois gun laws, including a mandate that firearm owners report a lost or stolen firearm within 48 hours of the owner finding the firearm missing, instead of the current 72-hour timeframe. Illinois State Police would also be given the ability to revoke a firearm owner's identification, or FOID, card if a gun owner fails to report a stolen or lost firearm twice or more under the bill. If a minor, at-risk or prohibited person gains access to an unlocked firearm, the bill provides the gun owner could face civil penalties ranging from $500 to $10,000 if the gun to hurt or kill another person in a crime. A separate section of the bill allows for a $1,000 fine and a Class C misdemeanor charge against a gun owner if a minor under the age of 18 causes death or bodily harm while accessing a firearm without permission. That language previously only applied to minors under the age of 14. 'Safe firearms storage and responsible gun ownership are practices on which all of us in this room, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, can agree,' Hirschauer said. 'Safe gun storage can reduce unintentional injuries, suicides and intentional harm, like school shootings, by stopping unauthorized access.' Under SB8, if a firearm owner fails to store their firearm in a secure, locked box and a minor, at-risk or prohibited person illegally obtains the firearm and uses it to hurt themselves or others – the owner could be charged with negligence. The Safe Gun Storage Act also requires Illinois State Police to expand an online database that was required under a previous law to house all information on the make, model and serial number of reported lost or stolen firearms. By Jan. 1, 2027, ISP would have to make the portal accessible to licensed firearm dealers, who would be required to cross-reference the database to ensure any firearms they are selling or transferring are not a firearm listed in the database. Another aspect of the bill classifies anyone traveling through the state with a firearm that's prohibited under state law as gun trafficking – a felony charge that can result in up to a 15-year prison sentence. During debate about the bill on the Senate floor in April, Sen. Neil Anderson, R-Andalusia, took issue with the bill giving Illinois State Police the ability to revoke a person's FOID card. He said that aspect of the bill would not pass the Rahimi test – referencing the 2023 United States v. Rahimi Supreme Court case, which ruled a court can temporarily revoke a perron's firearm rights if the court determines the firearm owner is a threat to public safety when in possession of a firearm. SB8 would allow Illinois State Police to revoke a person's FOID card, which Anderson said is in direct conflict with the Rahimi decision – which said only courts had the power to revoke a person's firearm rights. Bill sponsor Sen. Laura Ellman, D-Naperville, disagreed with Anderson, saying the Rahimi case did not exclude law enforcement from being able to revoke a person's FOID card. The bill passed the Senate on a vote of 33-19. A similar debate happened on the House floor Wednesday before the bill's eventual passage. Rep. Patrick Windhorst, R-Metropolis, took issue with the bill's creation of a potential negligence charge for gun owners who do not safely secure a gun that's used by a minor, at-risk or prohibited person to harm someone. He said he believed such a burden shift to be unconstitutional. Hirschauer responded that the burden shift only applies when the reasonable standard is met – when it's reasonably found that the gun owner should have known to safely store their firearm – or, if 'some terrible negligence' occurs. Windhorst also raised concerns about the fact that cable locks, which are locked cables inserted through a firearm's chamber and out of the magazine well, are not considered 'safe storage' under the bill. Under existing law about storing guns away from minors, a cable lock is considered safe storage of a firearm. Windhorst said that conflicts with the new language pertaining to gun storage, which does not mention devices that render a gun temporarily inoperable. 'Under the criminal code of this bill where we are changing our current child access protection law, a cable lock would suffice,' Hirschauer said. 'Under the new Safe Storage Act, it would not.' He also argued that the bill impeded the rights of concealed carry license holders who carry a gun in a vehicle, as some firearms owners currently store their gun in the center console or glove box. Under the Safe Gun Storage Act, the center console or glove box would have to be lockable in order to render the firearm safely stored. Windhorst also voiced concerns that the gun trafficking charges in the bill could be brought against a person passing through Illinois with firearms in their vehicle that are legal in their home state – a point which Hirschauer responded to by reading language in the bill that expressly excluded non-residents from the charges. 'If someone is a non-resident of Illinois and is passing through and they are a legal gun owner in the state in which they reside, if that state doesn't have a FOID card system and if they are authorized under federal law to own a gun, then they would not be subject to this,' she said. Rep. C.D. Davidsmeyer, R-Murrayville, raised concerns about the bill's definition of 'lawful permission' and its limitations on minors who hunt. The bill requires firearm owners to safely secure their firearm in a locked box when around a minor who does not have 'lawful permission' from a parent or guardian to access a firearm. On the House floor, Davidsmeyer asked what constitutes 'lawful permission,' to which Hirschauer answered it, 'could be several things.' When asked whether permission must be written down or notarized for parental permission of a minor using a firearm to hunt to be considered lawful, Hirschauer answered that 'hypothetical points are fact dependent.' Davidsmeyer said the question was not a hypothetical, and that it is an issue that will crop up in 'daily life' for minors who hunt. 'This bill, I believe, violates recent Supreme Court decisions under the Second Amendment and will likely be found unconstitutional,' Windhorst said at the end of debate. Hirschauer disagreed. 'Firearm theft compromises the effectiveness of our commonsense gun laws and often results in these weapons being acquired by people who are legally prohibited from possessing them,' she said. 'The reporting measures strengthened in this bill will give law enforcement the tools they need to crack down on lost and stolen guns.' Opponents to SB8 include the ACLU of Illinois, Illinois State Rifle Association and the Illinois State Crime Commissions; the Illinois State Police did not officially oppose or support the bill. SB8 passed the Senate 33-19 last month and awaits approval from the governor before it can become law. Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Explains Reason For Doubling Steel, Aluminum Tariffs
President Donald Trump at the U.S. Steel Corporation—Irvin Works in West Mifflin, Penn., on Friday, May 30, 2025. Credit - Rebecca Droke—Getty Images President Donald Trump announced on Friday that he plans to double the tariffs on steel and aluminum—increasing the charge from 25% to 50%. The tariff escalation comes at a precarious time, as Trump's 'reciprocal' tariffs are immersed in legal trouble at the court level and many U.S. businesses are struggling to contend with the back-and-forth nature of the levies. Trump's announcement also coincides with the 'blockbuster' agreement between U.S. Steel and Japanese steel company Nippon, a deal which he promised will include no layoffs and the steelmaker will be "controlled by the USA." The steepened tariffs could potentially further escalate tensions between the U.S. and its previous top steel partners, which include Canada, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, and Vietnam. As the U.S.' number one steel importer, Canada—with whom the U.S. has already escalated tensions due to Trump's other tariffs—stands to feel the pressure of this latest move. Here's what to know about Trump's doubled tariffs and what experts have to say about it. Trump announced his decision during a rally at U.S. Steel's Mon Valley Works–Irvin Plant near Pittsburgh in West Mifflin, Penn., surrounded by hardhat-donned steel workers. 'We're going to bring it from 25% percent to 50%—the tariffs on steel into the United States of America—which will even further secure the steel industry in the United States,' Trump told the crowd, offering his reasoning that the increased charges will ultimately help the domestic industry. 'Nobody's going to get around that.' He later posted about his decision on social media, revealing that the tariffs would also be raised for aluminum.'Our steel and aluminum industries are coming back like never before,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'This will be yet another BIG jolt of great news for our wonderful steel and aluminum workers.' In Trump's announcement post on Truth Social, he said that the doubled tariffs would come into effect on Wednesday, June 4. Although it's worth noting that other tariff threats—such as the proposed 50% charge on the E.U. and the majority of Trump's 'reciprocal' tariffs that he announced on April 2—have been temporarily paused to allow time for negotiations. It remains to be seen if an extension will be granted for this new June 4 date. The back-and-forth on tariff dates and rates has left many businesses in limbo, though Felix Tintelnot, professor of economics at Duke University, says that with steel and aluminum, the Administration has generally followed through on the timings they've announced. The question, he says, is how long the 50% will stand, as he's seen the rates 'flip-flopping all the time.' Tintelnot argues that the resulting uncertainty is causing real harm to U.S. businesses and thus, in turn, impacting workers, despite Trump's claims that the tariffs will bring large amounts of money to the U.S. steel industry. 'We're talking about expansion of capacity of heavy industry that comes with significant upfront investments, and no business leader should take heavy upfront investments if they don't believe that the same policy is there two, three, or four years from now,' Tintelnot says. 'Regardless of whether you're in favor [of] or against these tariffs, you don't want the President to just set tax rates arbitrarily, sort of by Executive Order all the time.' Though Tintelnot agrees that the escalated tariffs should help the domestic steel industry, he says it will be coinciding with struggles in other U.S. industries as a result of the increase. 'So, this is expected to raise the price of aluminum, which is important in inputs for downstream industries like the automotive industry, as well as construction, so there's sort of a distributional conflict here,' Tintelnot warns. 'Yes, it does help the domestic steel sector, but [it's] hurting these other sectors of the economy, and they are already hard hit by other tariffs.' The USW (Unity and Strength for Workers, most commonly referred to as United Steelworkers)—a trade union of steelworkers across North America— said in a statement that the increase will have a negative impact on Canada's industries and jobs. 'This isn't trade policy—it's a direct attack on Canadian industries and workers,' said Marty Warren, United Steelworkers national director for Canada. 'Thousands of Canadian jobs are on the line and communities that rely on steel and aluminum are being put at risk. Canada needs to respond immediately and decisively to defend workers.' Meanwhile, Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, said that the plan to double tariffs is a 'direct attack on Canadian workers and a reckless move' and warned that it "could shut Canadian steel and aluminum out of the U.S. market entirely and put thousands of good union jobs at risk." Speaking about the tariffs overall, Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney said on Friday that he intends to jumpstart and fast track national building projects throughout the country to respond to Trump's trade war, 'ensuring that the Canadian government becomes a catalyst for, not an impediment to, nation-building projects that will supercharge growth in communities, both large and small.' Other international lawmakers, meanwhile, have voiced their disapproval of Trump's tariffs escalations. Australia's Minister for Trade and Tourism, Don Farrell, said that Trump's doubled charges were 'unjustified and not the act of a friend.' Contact us at letters@
