Outrage as trans athlete exhibition backed by Nike appears in Smithsonian
The controversial exhibit, titled 'Change Your Game,' faced some criticism in January after Fox News ' pop culture website Outkick Sports featured photographs of one slide asking visitors about transgender former University of Pennsylvania swimmer, Lia Thomas: 'Do you think Thomas's participation on the women's team is fair or foul?'
Fitness influencer Jillian Michaels has now seized on the exhibit, not just for its reference to Thomas, but for another question about the fairness of biological testing in sports.
'[The exhibit]… talks about how it's complex to do gender testing in sports,' Michaels told CNN. 'It's not complex. It's basic science. Is it it fair to have biological men competing against biological women in sports? No, but why is this in the Smithsonian?'
The Smithsonian exhibit, which sits in Washington's National Museum of American History, addresses the complexities of gender testing, which is an idea that Michaels and others wholeheartedly reject.
Currently World Athletics, track's governing body, is rolling out gender screening for female athletes that relies on a cheek swab or dry blood-spot test to detect the presence of a 'Y' chromosome. This process is an extension of World Athletics' new eligibility requirements, effectively banning transgender athletes from women's competition.
Outkick Sports and XX-XY Athletics founder Jennifer Sey were both quick to point out that the exhibit is funded, in part, by Nike, which has faced criticism for promoting inclusivity.
'Why does a company that claims to support and lift female athletes refuse to condemn males competing in women's sports and invading women's locker rooms?' Asked Outkick's Dan Zaksheske. 'It doesn't make any sense.
'Unless, of course, Nike isn't really as interested in promoting women's sports as they are in promoting left-wing talking points. Their political position appears to trump everything else.'
Daily Mail has reached out for comment to Smithsonian and Nike spokespeople. An automated response from Nike's offices revealed the media relations staff is away for 'Well-Being Week.'
. @Nike is sponsoring an exhibit at the Smithsonian which says sex testing is impossible and males don't really have an advantage in women's sports.
Thanks to @JillianMichaels for calling it out.
And @RealDanZak for writing about it.
Here's my take. pic.twitter.com/uHVagTSanT
— Jennifer Sey (@JenniferSey) August 14, 2025
The controversy comes as the White House has ordered a review of Smithsonian exhibits ahead of the country's 250th birthday.
The clear goal: Aligning the museum's exhibits with Trump's view of the country and its history.
'This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions,' read an open letter to Smithsonian Institution Secretary Lonnie Bunch III.
The examination will focus on 'tone, historical framing, and alignment with American ideals.'
Civil rights leaders have rejected Trump's efforts, saying he is trying to erase African Americans' contributions to the country while recasting the country's poor history on racial equality.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
Putin's envoy Dmitriev meets a bear in Alaska before US-Russia summit
Vladimir Putin 's envoy Kirill Dmitriev met a bear in Alaska ahead of upcoming crunch talks on ending the Russia - Ukraine war. Sharing footage of the interaction on social media on Friday (15 August), the economic adviser to the Russian president can be seen walking towards the mammal which is standing by a lake. "Met a bear in Alaska before the US -Russia Summit," Dmitriev wrote, alongside a teddy bear emoji. 'Hopefully a good sign.' Putin also made a pit-stop ahead of the 'high stakes' meeting in Anchorage with Donald Trump, with a trip to a fish factory in a far-eastern Russian town of Magadan.
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
The hard work on a peace deal has only just begun
Despite the excitement about the first US-Russia summit since 2021 – and the first between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin for seven years – the meeting in Alaska was never going to produce a 'deal' in the sense of a detailed treaty addressing claims of sovereignty, borders, security guarantees, prisoners, kidnapped civilians, mineral rights and much else. That will, eventually, be required to secure something like sustainable peace in the region, albeit with the constant and well-founded suspicion that Putin is less than a man of his word – even if it is given to President Trump. As Volodymyr Zelensky has said on occasion, 'All wars end with negotiations. It's not the soldiers in the trenches who decide when.' If Ukraine is not to be allowed into the negotiations, there can be no deal and no peace, even if a ceasefire holds. The exclusion of President Zelensky from participating at this early stage is perhaps intended, at least on the part of President Trump, as a way to get the process moving. For Putin, it is more calculated – highlighting the superiority of his position, as leader of a superpower supposedly co-equal to the United States, over that of the president of Ukraine. Partly for reasons to do with his own imperialist ideology, and partly for tactical purposes, Putin doesn't accept that Ukraine has a right to exist as an independent democratic nation. Also, he cynically disputes Mr Zelensky's position as Ukraine's president, because his term of office has expired and there have been no new elections. This, of course, is because no free elections can be held in Ukrainian territory occupied by Putin's forces, and a state of martial law currently prevails. For a change – and with some useful pressure being applied by Ukraine's European allies – Mr Trump doesn't agree with the Russians on this, and wants bilateral (or trilateral) talks to include Mr Zelensky, and quickly. The US president tacitly acknowledges that even he, self-declared master of the art of the deal, can't confidently redraw the borders of, say, the Kherson oblast, much less find Mariupol on a map, and that his officials shouldn't have to do so as proxies for the Ukrainian government. Mr Zelensky and his team will have to be involved. President Zelensky is right to demand a seat at the table, and he is also right to say that no final deal can be agreed without a referendum, as is required by the constitution of Ukraine. It is not for him to sign away millions of his citizens to a foreign power. How such a vote could be conducted in occupied territory, or whether it would only apply to 'free Ukraine', is just one of the major details that will need to be settled before this war can be declared over. As many governments have found before – including the British government during Brexit – it is axiomatic in treaty-making that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. This is also a moment for political imagination and diplomatic innovation. If Ukraine agrees not to join the EU or Nato, could it have some kind of associate status? How could the presence of private and federal US personnel in the rare-earth and minerals mining areas help to maintain order? More radical proposals could also be tabled. If neither the US nor Europe is prepared to back Ukraine unconditionally, then some unpalatable options must be contemplated. Successive British prime ministers, for example, had the attitude that 'Ukraine can win, Ukraine must win, Ukraine will win.' That mantra is not heard now. So other alternatives – and this, shamefully, does mean appeasement – have to be explored. The eastern provinces of Ukraine, in certain circumstances, might not have to be returned to Ukraine or absorbed into the Russian Federation if a different status as a neutral 'buffer' region could be established. The Donbas and other areas would be controlled neither by Moscow nor by Kyiv, demilitarised, and 'Finlandised', in the way that Finland was during the Cold War and until last year. Citizens might be free to choose their citizenship, or opt for both, and the various cultures, religions and language rights would be respected. In quieter times, the peoples there could be asked in an internationally supervised referendum whether they wished to join Ukraine, or Russia, or to stay independent. That would surely be preferable to simply freezing the border along the present front line. The histories of Korea since 1950, and Cyprus since 1974, shows how unstable, if long-lived, such a non-solution can turn out to be. Both Ukraine and Russia feel that their security is threatened in some way – whether sincerely or not, and whether or not the notion is justified – and the wider international community will have to be involved in providing what Sir Keir Starmer calls a 'reassurance force' in Ukraine. President Trump, an avowed 'America First' isolationist, is allergic to joining such a force – but if 'his' deal is ever going to stick, it is difficult to see how it can do so without the United States offering some kind of pledge to Ukraine to defend any new de facto, or de jure, frontiers with Russia. Sadly, the 'coalition of the willing' assembled by Sir Keir and Emmanuel Macron seems to be more like an alliance of the unwilling when it comes to fighting for Ukraine. Europe also wants a seat at the top table, but past proposals brokered by France and Germany have proved unsuccessful. If Europe wants to have a say in any settlement, it will need to earn it through military and economic commitment. Indeed, it will be essential, given America's express desire to wind down its presence on the continent and its role in Nato. A quadrilateral structure for a long period of detailed peace-conference work, in some suitable neutral location, should comprise teams from Ukraine, Russia and the US along with a joint European presence. The real hard work on the peace deal has only just begun. As someone once put it, the Ukrainian peace process is, at best, only at the 'end of the beginning' stage.
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
Bad diets, too many meds, no exercise: A look inside the latest 'Make America Healthy Again' report
A report that U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has promised will improve the health of America's children does not call on the government to make significant changes to its food or farming policies, according to a draft document obtained by The Associated Press. The 'Make America Healthy Again' strategy report is supposed to be one of Kennedy's signature achievements as the nation's health secretary, giving the government a roadmap to help its citizens lose weight, reduce chronic diseases and exercise more. Before coming to Washington, Kennedy had spent much of his career decrying the harms of chemicals sprayed on crops, prescription drugs, ultraprocessed foods, and vaccines. His coalition, then, has expected him to take bold action as the nation's top health leader. But a draft of the so-called 'MAHA' report, first reported by The New York Times Thursday night, mostly calls on the government to further study chronic diseases, bad air quality, Americans' diets and prescription drug use. The report lays out four problem areas – poor diet, chemical exposure, lack of physical activity and overuse of medications -- that are to blame for chronic diseases in the U.S. The White House has held off on publicly releasing the report, which was submitted to President Donald Trump on Tuesday. The latest report is the policy companion to a 'MAHA' report released in May, which was found to have several errors in it. White House spokesman Kush Desai refused to confirm whether the copy obtained by the Associated Press was a final version, though HHS officials have insisted the report has been finalized since Tuesday. 'President Trump pledged to Make America Healthy Again, and the Administration is committed to delivering on that pledge with Gold Standard Science,' Desai said. 'Until officially released by the White House and MAHA Commission, however, any documents purporting to be the second MAHA Report should be considered as nothing more than speculative literature.' Some in the agricultural industry had warily anticipated the report, fearing it would call for bans or investigations into the use of pesticides and herbicides that farmers in the U.S. regularly spray on crops to control weeds and enhance yields. Other farmers were concerned about how the report may target the use of corn syrup, a common sweetener, in American foods. Both products have been a central talking point in Kennedy's 'MAHA' movement, which has attracted a diverse coalition of suburban and rural moms, Trump supporters and liberals concerned about the nation's food supply. Instead, the report calls for an 'awareness' campaign to raise confidence in pesticides. Concerns from the agricultural industry waned as the report hit the president's desk, with one of Kennedy's closest advisers, Calley Means, calling for MAHA supporters to work with major farm companies on Tuesday. Means also acknowledged that the 'pace of political change' can be frustrating. 'We need to build bridges,' Means said, adding that: 'We are not going to win if the soybean farmers and the corn growers are our enemy.' Means did not respond to a request for comment on Friday. A spokesman for Kennedy also declined to comment. The report urges the National Institutes of Health – which is facing a 40% cut to its budget under the Trump administration – to undertake several studies on Americans' health, including research on vaccine injury, autism, air quality, water quality, prescription drugs, and nutrition. The report also calls for changes to the foods served in schools and hospitals, something that will be hard to deliver with the Trump administration's funding cuts, said Kari Hamerschlag, the deputy director of the food and agriculture at the nonprofit Friends of the Earth. Earlier this year, the Republican-led administration wiped out $1 billion set aside that helped food banks and schools procure food directly from local farmers. 'This is not going to transform our food and farming system,' Hamerschlag said. 'This is not going to make people healthier. They need to put resources behind their recommendations.'
