Justice Department ratchets up pressure on California school districts to bar trans athletes
The U.S. Justice Department ratcheted up its efforts to block transgender athletes from competing in school sports in California by warning school districts Monday that they will face legal trouble if they don't break from the state and bar such athletes from competition within days.
The new warning followed similar threats by the Trump administration to the state and the California Interscholastic Federation, which governs youth sports and requires transgender athletes be allowed to compete. It also comes after AB Hernandez, a 16-year-old transgender junior from Jurupa Valley High School, won multiple medals at the state high school track and field championships on Saturday, despite a directive from President Trump that she not be allowed to compete.
Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon — a conservative California lawyer who focused on challenging LGBTQ+-friendly state laws before being appointed by Trump to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division — wrote in a Monday letter to school districts that continuing to comply with CIF rules allowing transgender athletes to compete 'would deprive girls of athletic opportunities and benefits based solely on their biological sex,' in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
To 'avoid legal liability' for such violations, Dhillon wrote, each district must 'certify in writing' by June 9 that it is no longer complying with the federation's rules and barring transgender athletes from competition.
Dhillon said on the social media platform X that her office put '1600+ California schools on blast for violating equal protection in girls' sports.'
Dhillon's letter made no mention of the CIF's rule change last week — after Trump threatened to revoke federal funding from California if Hernandez competed in the state championships. The change allowed any cisgender girl bumped from qualifying for event finals by a transgender athlete to compete anyway. It also ensured cisgender girls were awarded medals in every race, regardless of how Hernandez placed.
The policy was intended as a compromise, but it drew little support from those on the conservative right demanding a full ban on transgender athletes.
In addition to Trump's funding threat, Dhillon's office last week announced it was launching an investigation into the state, the interscholastic federation and the Jurupa Unified School District, where Hernandez competes.
A spokesperson for California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta's office said officials there were 'very concerned with the Trump Administration's ongoing threats to California schools and remain committed to defending and upholding California laws and all additional laws which ensure the rights of students — including transgender students — to be free from discrimination and harassment.'
The office was 'reviewing the letter and closely monitoring the Trump Administration's actions in this space,' the spokesperson said.
Elizabeth Sanders, a spokesperson for the California Department of Education, said the agency had no comment on Dhillon's letter Monday but was 'preparing to send guidance' out to districts Tuesday. She said California Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond also had no response Monday.
The Los Angeles Unified School District declined to comment. Other local districts around L.A. did not respond to requests for comment.
LGBTQ+ advocates criticized Dhillon's letter, calling it the latest proof that the Trump administration is not actually concerned with protecting cisgender athletes but with targeting transgender kids to score political points.
Shannon Minter, vice president of legal at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, helped draft the interscholastic federation's original rules allowing transgender athletes to compete, and also supports the new rule — which he said ensures that both transgender and cisgender athletes get to compete.
At last weekend's meet, for example, Hernandez's competing did not push any cisgender girls out of competition.
Hernandez took gold in both the girls' triple jump and girls' high jump, and placed second in the girls' long jump — but wasn't alone in any of those spots.
For the triple jump, she stood on the podium alongside a cisgender girl who was also given gold. For the high jump, she shared the podium with two cisgender girls with whom she tied. For the long jump, she shared the second-place podium spot with a cisgender girl who also was awarded silver.
The new rule addressed 'the concerns people had about taking opportunities away from non-transgender girls, and it makes sure that cannot happen — it literally eliminates that concern altogether,' Minter said.
By ignoring the new rules, he said, Dhillon's letter 'shows what we already knew, which is that this administration isn't concerned at all about protecting athletic opportunities for girls, this is just about bias against transgender people — pure and simple.'
Critics of transgender youth participating in sports, meanwhile, cheered Dhillon's letter as a major victory.
Sophia Lorey, outreach director for the conservative California Family Council, said it was 'huge.' Lorey was kicked out of the state championships Saturday after handing out fliers urging people to sign a petition calling on the interscholastic federation to change its policies.
'Here we gooooo!' Lorey wrote on X. 'As a born & raised Californian who played soccer through college — I am beyond grateful.'
At least a handful of California school districts with conservative elected leaders would be eager to comply with the new directive.
On April 17, the Chino Valley Unified school board unanimously approved a resolution titled 'Supporting Title IX and Fairness in Girls' Interscholastic Sports.' The resolution stated that 'biological differences between male and female athletes can create inherent advantage in competitive sports, particularly in categories designated specifically for girls.'
The school system called on state governing bodies to uphold protections for girls in sports under Title IX, a 1972 federal civil rights law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal funding.
In April, the school system also filed a Title IX complaint with the federal Justice Department against Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California Department of Education, Thurmond and the California Interscholastic Federation.
The complaint said Chino Valley was 'now caught between conflicting state and federal directives' and was requesting 'urgent federal intervention.'
Sonja Shaw, president of the Chino Valley Unified school board, wrote on X that Dhillon's letter was 'a historic win' for parents, their daughters, the nation and 'truth.'
'We will not bend. We will not compromise. We will protect our daughters at all costs,' wrote Shaw, who is running for state superintendent of public instruction. 'The tide is turning. The silence is broken. And we are just getting started.'
Shaw also suggested that the support from the Trump administration could encourage her school system to take more aggressive action.
'I'm bringing this matter forward at our next board meeting,' Shaw said. 'We will not comply with insanity. We will not be bullied into silence. We will not betray our girls to please radicals.'
Hernandez's mother, Nereyda Hernandez, could not be reached Monday, but has previously said that it was heartbreaking to see her child being attacked 'simply for being who they are,' and despite following all California laws and policies for competing.
She begged Trump to reconsider his efforts to oust transgender girls from sports.
'My child is a transgender student-athlete, a hardworking, disciplined, and passionate young person who just wants to play sports, continue to build friendships, and grow into their fullest potential like any other child,' she said.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk's business empire was built on government help. How badly could Donald Trump hurt him?
Even for Elon Musk, this is — to use the precise technical term — bonkers. Barely one week after leaving the Trump administration with every semblance of amity, the world's richest person is going scorched earth against the leader of the world's richest nation. Insults and threats. Calls for impeachment. Sinister references to Jeffrey Epstein. Somehow, Kanye West is also involved. It's like the messiest online influencer drama you've ever seen, except the parties are two of the most powerful people on Earth. But when it comes down to brass tacks, what exactly does Musk stand to lose in this titanic celebrity divorce? If Trump were to follow through on all his threats, and use every available weapon against Musk's business empire, how badly could it hurt him? The short answer is: pretty badly. In fact, with some admittedly quick and dirty math, we can put a price tag on some of it. Elon Musk's estimated $388bn fortune — already $26.6bn smaller than it was before this frank exchange of thermonuclear warheads — depends on the success of two companies which are both intertwined with the U.S. political system. One is Tesla, which makes electric vehicles; the other is SpaceX, which builds rockets, spacecraft, and satellites. X, formerly Twitter, can be left aside for now; having bought the social network 2022 for $44bn, Musk is still struggling to recoup his investment and has almost certainly lost money overall. Let's start with Space Exploration Technologies Corp., aka SpaceX. Not many people can afford to rent a rocket, so a lot of its business comes from government contracts, and U.S. government contracts most of all. As of writing, according to federal data, the Texas-based company has been paid or promised just under $21bn by Uncle Sam since 2008. The total potential value of all SpaceX's existing contracts, however, is much higher: $89.2bn. If Trump cancelled every contract tomorrow, that would mean a theoretical maximum of $68bn in lost potential income. For context, that's more than four times SpaceX's entire forecasted revenue for 2025, and nearly 15 times its revenue from 2022. Of course, there's no way to know if those maximum payments would ever actually have been made. So we could also get a rough sense of what SpaceX stands to lose by looking at the actual cash it received from federal coffers every year. In 2022 that was $2.8bn; in 2023, $3.1bn; and in 2024, $3.8bn. On the plus side for Musk, the U.S. government is so dependent on SpaceX that some critics have called it a monopoly in the making. SpaceX ferries our astronauts to and from the International Space Station, is heavily involved in Nasa's moon landing program, and manages an increasing share of government satellite communications as well. Still, that does not guarantee safety. Would you really, in all soberness, bet against Donald Trump doing something that hurts the country merely to punish his personal enemies? In fact, as Talking Points Memo editor-in-chief Josh Marshall argues, SpaceX's critical role might actually put it in greater danger, because it leaves the feds with few options except "expropriation or nationalization". Like SpaceX, Tesla has benefited greatly from taxpayer money, mostly in the form of emission trading payments from non-electric carmakers and tax credits or consumers buying electric vehicles. An analysis by The Washington Post put Tesla's total income from emission credits since 2007 at $11.4bn as of this February. Its gain from tax credits, which allow more people to buy its cars at higher prices, has been estimated at $3.4bn. Those emission credit schemes are run by U.S. states, not by the federal government. Nevertheless, Trump and the Republican Party have tried to undermine such schemes by contesting states' ability to set their own emissions rules. The wider impact is difficult to calculate. In contrast to SpaceX, Tesla sells to ordinary people, who tend to have their own opinions independent of government. In reputational terms, splitting noisily with Trump could reverse some of its recent sales losses; on the other hand, it might just make Tesla hated on both sides of politics. The biggest risk may be regulatory. At the time of Trump's second inauguration, Tesla was being investigated by numerous federal agencies including the Justice Department, the National Labor Relations Board, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — which by itself had six pending probes. During his time at DOGE, Democrats feared Musk could use his power to influence or cancel these cases. But Trump's unabashed willingness to wield state power to punish those who displease him while rewarding loyalists cuts both ways. Live by the chainsaw, die by the chainsaw. How much that costs Tesla would depend on how far Trump is willing to go, and on the outcome of any ensuing court battle. But when U.S. stock exchanges closed on Thursday its share price had crashed by nearly 12 percent, wiping $122bn off its market value. So far we've only addressed Elon Musk's finances. Yet there are other, more personal ways that Trump could hurt him if the former reality TV star truly isn't here to make friends. For example, Trump's old advisor Stephen Bannon — who has previously branded Musk a "parasitic illegal immigrant" — urged the administration to investigate Musk's immigration history, and potentially deport him. Unlike some of the feverish allegations that emanate from the extended Trump-o-sphere, this one actually has some substance. An investigation by The Washington Post last year alleged that Musk had worked illegally in the U.S. while launching his Silicon Valley career in the mid-90s. Musk has denied this, and in any case he has been a U.S. citizen since 2002. Still, legal experts have said his citizenship could technically be revoked if he were proven to have lied to immigration authorities. And while those laws have only rarely been enforced in the past 25 years, some Trump aides and allies have said they want that to change. Nor is that anywhere close to the only alleged skeleton in Musk's closet. What is his relationship with ecstasy, Adderall, ketamine, or magic mushrooms? Has he ever been in regular contact with Vladimir Putin? Did his colleagues at DOGE rigorously follow information security laws when extracting sensitive data from federal systems? What happened to all that data after it was obtained? At least we can probably can rule out plain old assassination by government special forces. Although, to be fair, that is literally something that Trump and his lawyers have argued should be protected by presidential immunity. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

USA Today
23 minutes ago
- USA Today
President Trump set to attend UFC 316 in New Jersey this weekend
President Trump set to attend UFC 316 in New Jersey this weekend Show Caption Hide Caption Donald Trump attends UFC 309 at Madison Square Garden President-elect Donald Trump walked into Madison Square Garden alongside UFC CEO Dana White, Elon Musk and Kid Rock for UFC 309. As his feud with tech billionaire and former MAGA darling Elon Musk exploded into public view this week, the White House says President Donald Trump is planning to attend a UFC event in New Jersey this weekend. The event, UFC 316, is slated for Saturday, June 7 at the Prudential Center in Newark, New Jersey. The president is scheduled to depart the White House for his golf club in New Jersey Friday afternoon, according to his official schedule, and return to the White House Sunday night. Musk has been high-profile guest for some of Trump's previous visits to the octagon, but the pair had a public falling-out this week after Musk's departure from the Trump administration. 'Siri, play Bad Blood': Internet reacts to Elon Musk and Trump 'breakup' The Trump-Musk fight took off this week when Musk called for Republicans to kill the House-passed tax bill that is a signature part of the second-term president's legislative agenda, calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' Two days later, Trump told reporters at the Oval Office on June 5 that he was 'very disappointed' with Musk and suggested their 'great relationship' was over. In response, Musk took to social media shortly afterward to blast the president, saying Trump wouldn't have won a second term and Republicans would have fared worse in elections in both chambers of the U.S. Congress were it not for his efforts on the 2024 campaign trail, where he poured a quarter of a million dollars into Trump's campaign. The tussle escalated in a back-and-forth between the two men, with Trump suggested going after Musk's companies and their federal contracts, and Musk alleging that Trump's name was in the Justice Department's files related to the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The pair's most recent fight appearance was in April, when Trump and Musk sat ringside at UFC 314 in Miami. The president has long attended UFC events, as CEO Dana White was a prominent supporter of Trump during his 2024 presidential campaign. When is UFC 316? UFC 316, which is headlined by Sean O'Malley vs. Merab Dvalishvili, is set to take place at 10 p.m. ET/7 p.m. PT at the Prudential Center in Newark, New Jersey. The main card is available for pay-per-view on ESPN. More: Sean O'Malley vs. Merab Dvalishvili 2 predictions; full card, odds, picks for UFC 316 Contributing: Riley Beggin, Sudiksha Kochi and Cydney Henderson, USA TODAY. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk lost $34 billion in net worth as Tesla stock tanked amid Trump online war
Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, lost $34 billion in net worth on Thursday after his company's stock plummeted in response to the online fight he got in with President Donald Trump. Over the last week, some Tesla stock investors had begun pulling their investments as Musk insulted Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' and made a swift exit from his 'special government employee' position. But, investors acted much more quickly while witnessing the two men engage in a back-and-forth on their respective social media platforms. Trump claimed he asked 'crazy' Musk to leave his administration. Musk took credit for Trump's election win. Trump threatened to pull Musk's government contracts. Musk accused Trump of being named in the 'Epstein files.' Down the stock went, ending the day at a 14 percent loss – equating to a $34 billion valuation for Musk. While many claim to have anticipated the online feud, it's a long way away from Musk jumping for joy onstage at Trump's rallies or the duo's Oval Office press conferences. The cracks started to appear in their relationship after the tech mogul refused to stand by and praise Trump's spending bill, which he has characterized as disastrous for the government. Musk's Thursday loss is part of the 33 percent decline Tesla's stock has seen since Inauguration Day. Although the stock had significant gains after the election, much of that has been wiped out by growing criticisms of Musk's role in the government, DOGE, and now his exit. Musk is still the world's richest man, but a $34 billion drop in net worth is still notable given it's the second-largest loss of the 500 wealthiest people on the planet recorded by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. 'The only bigger one: his own wipeout in November 2021,' Bloomberg reported. But the tech entrepreneur still has plenty of other endeavors to drive his wealth, including SpaceX, one of the world's most valuable private startups, according to Bloomberg, Neuralink and xAI. As the dust settles from the powerful individuals' fight, it's still unclear what path forward Musk and his subsidiaries will take now that Trump has bashed Tesla's climate-conscious mission and threatened to revoke Musk's critical government contracts. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data