As President Trump’s deportation plans for undocumented immigrants made headlines across the nation, a less publicized response is underway. Mexico’s plan for receiving repatriated citizens, called “Mexico Embraces You” or “Mexico te abraza,” was announced in late January. Government officials began developing the program after then-presidential nominee Trump’s Sep. 13 campaign promise to carry out mass deportations.
The goal of “Mexico Embraces You” is to provide a dignified transition for the migrants, along with reintegration opportunities. Mexican officials have launched an app to inform the nearest U.S.-based Mexican Consulate when migrants are deported, and they are being supported by UN agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Additionally, the Mexican government has constructed nine care centers across the six Mexican border states to assist with meeting migrants’ basic needs and reintegrating them into Mexican society through employment and welfare programs. 189 buses are available to transport migrants from various reception points to these care centers, and at least 125 public servants are employed at each care center. There are also 100 buses intended to transport deportees back to their home states.
Furthermore, each Mexican migrant is provided with a “Bienestar Paisano Card” designed to support their immediate expenses, which is worth 2,000 pesos (approximately 100 USD). They are able to enroll in various federal government programs and the Mexican Social Security Institute, which cover pensions for disabled people and the elderly, learning opportunities, housing support, medical care and childcare.
In the last month since U.S. deportations began, the care centers have received a total of 14,470 migrants. Of those deportees, 11,379 are Mexicans, while 3,091 are from another country. Mexican President Gloria Sheinbaum has said that her government would accept and voluntarily return non-Mexican deportees to their nations of origin, although the details on this proposal are still unclear.
Experts have raised concerns about the long-term viability of Mexico’s reintegration efforts for its own citizens. The New York Times reported that the care centers may be unprepared to support migrants dealing with traumatic effects of deportations and family separations, while an additional source concurred that some Mexican migrants left their home communities due to violence and a lack of opportunities, making them hesitant to return there. These sources indicated that the migrants who fit this description are more likely to settle in a large city such as the capital, Mexico City, rather than returning to their home state.
On Feb. 25, Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-C.O.) flew cross-country from Colorado to Washington, D.C., with her four-week-old infant, to vote against the House spending plan. At the beginning of her statement on the House floor, Rep. Pettersen said, “I wasn’t going to let [being denied the opportunity to vote virtually] stop me from being here to represent my constituents.” The budget, which has the potential to cut social services like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to fund tax cuts for the wealthy, passed by two votes.
Pregnancy-related travel restrictions prevented Rep. Pettersen from representing the seventh district of Colorado for a month and a half from Jan. 13 to Feb. 25. She was not medically permitted to fly as her due date approached because of the increased risk of blood clots and radiation exposure, and she could not travel for four weeks following the birth of her son. Furthermore, many providers advise against air travel until the infant is at least three months old to avoid slowing the parent’s recovery, exacerbating pain from childbirth and to reduce the risk of the newborn contracting an illness. Others suggest waiting at least six weeks to allow for recovery, yet Rep. Pettersen traveled as soon as possible to represent her district and vote on the House budget.
Some votes could be drastically changed by the presence or absence of a single member of Congress, which is why Rep. Pettersen and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-F.L.) proposed House Resolution 23 in January to allow new parents to vote by proxy for 12 weeks following the birth of their child. The bipartisan resolution, titled “Proxy Voting for New Parents Resolution,” would permit a member of the House who has given birth or a member of the House whose spouse has given birth to designate another member to cast their vote, as authorized via a signed form with specific components. There is precedent for proxy voting in Congress, as it was available during the pandemic. If passed, this resolution may pave the way for other proxy votes, covering instances such as a member’s illness, attending a funeral or caring for a sick family member.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-L.A.) opposes the resolution because he believes that proxy voting is unconstitutional, and will likely refuse to bring it up for a vote. Despite this opposition, Reps. Luna and Pettersen plan to file a discharge petition in mid-March to force House Resolution 23 to the floor, and they are working on winning additional Republican support to ensure that the discharge petition passes. Rep. Luna told CNN that this is a pro-family policy, which should have the support of the Republican Party because it often emphasizes its pro-family platform.
Support for all facets of reproductive health, including pregnancy, childbirth and childcare, is essential. Without it, people may hesitate to take positions that would interfere with their reproductive agency, particularly individuals who can become pregnant. Although women have served in Congress for over a century and currently make up about 29% of our legislative branch, Reps. Luna and Pettersen were only the twelfth and thirteenth women to give birth in Congress. The U.S. must affirm and protect the choice to become a parent, as well as the choice not to, and provide the necessary infrastructure so that each choice is feasible. This should not be a partisan issue.
This issue expands further than Congress, as the lack of paid leave laws across the nation restricts employment access, particularly for women. Although the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) guarantees up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for workers regardless of gender, it does not support low-income and working-class women who would not be able to forgo their wages while on leave. FMLA also excludes part-time workers, small business employees and individuals who have been at their job for less than a year. Like Reps. Luna and Pettersen’s proposal to establish proxy voting for new parents, policies like paid leave, fair pay and improved childcare infrastructure have the potential to break down economic and political barriers for all people, regardless of political affiliation.
Since the presidential election on November 6, 2024, many have felt uncertainty and concern about the policy changes implemented by the new administration. Issues such as immigration, reproductive rights, and gender equality have faced new challenges, making it easy to feel overwhelmed. However, staying engaged and motivated is essential for advocating for a better future. On that note, here are five hopeful things that have happened over the past month!
1. The freeze on federal funding for DEI programs was blocked
As of Friday, Feb. 21, a federal judge blocked the enforcement of President Trump’s executive order that aimed to end federal funding for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. The judge agreed with the plaintiffs that the Inauguration Day executive order likely violates the Constitution, particularly regarding the First Amendment’s free speech rights. The temporary court order will remain in place until the case, brought by the city of Baltimore and various other groups, has concluded.
2. Proud Boys lose their trademark to the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church
On Feb. 3, 2025, a D.C. judge ruled to remove control of the far-right extremist group Proud Boys’ trademark and ban them from selling merchandise with its name or symbols. To profit from either of these trademarked items, the Proud Boys International LLC must receive permission from the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church. This ruling came after the Proud Boys failed to pay the $2.8 million owed to the Metropolitan AME Church in restitution for the physical damage caused by former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and others in late 2020. Now, the church is entitled to the profits of any Proud Boys merchandise.
3. People like you are raising their voices
Before the inauguration, thousands of people gathered in D.C. and across the country for the People’s March, a new version of the 2017 Women’s March aimed at bringing together advocates on a wider range of issues. Additionally, thanks to the 50501 Movement, people have come out to protest nationwide twice in February, with a third demonstration planned for March. The movement is dedicated to many causes, such as “immigrant rights, government accountability and opposition to Project 2025,” and it calls for 50 protests in 50 states on 1 day in partnership with the political action committee, Political Revolution.
The movement supports upholding the Constitution, restoring DEI and protecting civil liberties. Thousands of people protested nationwide on Feb. 5 in the movement’s first demonstration and braved inclement weather on Feb. 17 for a twist on President’s Day dubbed “No Kings Day” and “Not My President’s Day.” The upcoming March 4 demonstrations offer in-person and virtual options across all 50 states and virtual protest calls for D.C.
4. Increasing pressure on elected officials
Americans nationwide are using the power of constituent phone calls and town halls to push their members of Congress to stand up to Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), block President Trump’s cabinet nominees and resume federal funding to key areas.
As of Feb. 7, Congressional phone lines were experiencing a heavy call load of 1,600 calls per minute. This is 40 times higher than the usual volume! Additionally, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-V.T.) has begun a nationwide anti-oligarchy tour to speak with Republican-led swing districts and focus on issues that are important to working-class people. He aims to mobilize the American people against authoritarianism, kleptocracy and cuts to social services while encouraging Republican House members to oppose their party’s proposed tax cuts.
Similarly, the National Organization for Women (NOW)’s new campaign, Disrupt NOW, will host nonpartisan town halls across the nation to educate the public and hear about what issues matter most to people.
5. Registrations are beginning to roll in for NYFLC
Students are registering for the Feminist Majority Foundation’s annual National Young Feminist Leadership Conference! The conference brings together hundreds of student activists to build collective power, grow knowledge about critical domestic and global feminist issues, and learn hands-on grassroots organizing tactics. Every day, the threats to our basic human rights intensify. Now more than ever, it is important for us to connect and strategize with other feminist activists and strengthen our community. The event will last three days, from Saturday, March 29 to Monday, March 31. Join our mobilizing efforts here!
On Jan. 29, President Trump signed an executive order entitled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” which restricts discussions on race, gender, and LGBTQ+ issues in public schools. Instead, schools are directed to focus on “patriotic education,” which should be grounded in “an accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling characterization of America’s founding and foundational principles.” This order is inherently hypocritical, as an accurate and honest account of American history will not necessarily be ennobling. In short, learning about history does not, and should not, always make students feel good.
This order blames schools for indoctrinating children and preventing them from using critical thinking skills. It also bans the teaching of victim and oppressor identities based on skin color and other characteristics, specifying that schools may not teach students to feel responsible for actions committed in the past by members of their identity group.
Trump’s order goes on to name white privilege and unconscious bias as concepts that promote racial discrimination and violate anti-discrimination civil rights law. These concepts fall under the category of “discriminatory equity ideology,” a term used in this executive order to describe the practice of being aware of systems of oppression and the effects of privilege on oneself and others.
The Trump Administration is attempting to use laws meant to protect marginalized groups to legitimate their claims of “reverse racism,” or discrimination against white people. It is clear that they want to prevent and reduce prejudice against white people, which is not the same as racism, as racism involves the unequal distribution of power based on race. The same concept applies to oppression on the basis of gender, sexuality and more.
By issuing guidelines for conversations around discrimination, Trump is attempting to erase discussions of difference, privilege and power because it benefits the perpetuation of oppressive systems, while also appealing to his base. Certain language in this executive order is designed to cater to parental rights activists, a socially conservative movement aimed at giving parents more oversight in schools, particularly regarding reading material, transgender students and discussion of race, sexuality, and gender identity.
In terms of action items, “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling” directs various officials to provide an Ending Indoctrination Strategy to the president so he can terminate federal funding to schools that engage in “discriminatory treatment and indoctrination,” including “discriminatory equity ideology.” Typically, 13.7% of public school funding comes from the federal government.
Furthermore, the order instructs the attorney general to coordinate with state attorneys general and local district attorneys to file appropriate actions against teachers and school officials. Grounds for legal action include sexually exploiting minors, offering diagnoses or treatments without a license, and facilitating the social transition of a minor student. It is important to note that sexual harassment is already banned under Title IX, although the enforcement of this policy may be at risk if Trump dismantles the Department of Education. Below is a list of everyday actions that could put a teacher or administrator at risk:
Engaging in a counseling session with a student regarding social gender transition
Using a student’s chosen name or pronouns
Calling a child “nonbinary”
Allowing transgender students to use the facilities and play on the sports teams of their chosen gender
“Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling” is a dangerously hypocritical executive order that pushes a false narrative about power and privilege. It seeks to intimidate school officials away from caring for the students at the highest risk of bullying and other forms of violence while preventing students from learning about why they have different experiences from their peers. However, state attorneys general are not yet obligated to enforce this order; multiple existing laws preclude the federal government from influencing state and local decisions about teaching and learning, and trans rights are civil rights, no matter what one executive order says.
As the history of American education has shown, reform efforts such as “Ending Radical Indoctrination” are likely to be unsuccessful unless they align with the undercurrent of change, which is determined by the people.
On Wednesday, Feb. 5, The Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) hosted an event titled “2025 Federal Policy Solutions to Advance Gender Equity,” where policymakers, experts and advocates gathered to strategize on the urgent need to safeguard and expand women’s rights. The panelists included President of the National Partnership for Women and Families Jocelyn Frye, Co-President and CEO of Guttmacher Institute Destiny Lopez, and Pronita Gupta, a Senior Fellow at Workshop. President and CEO of IWPR Dr. Jamila K. Taylor served as the moderator. This event was held in partnership with Congresswoman Jan Schawkowsky (D-I.L.).
In the face of unprecedented attacks on women’s progress, the event highlighted how critical it is for those in positions of power to work towards structural change that not only defends existing rights, but also pushes forward into new realms of equality and justice.
A majority of the panel was dedicated to the intersection between economic justice and gender equity, with focuses on childcare, paid medical leave, health insurance, and women’s protections in the workplace. Frye aptly pointed out that opening jobs to women without providing them the infrastructure to take advantage of them is an “empty opportunity,” given that childcare responsibilities often fall to women.
Additionally, a 2022 estimate from the Boston Consulting Group found that paid and unpaid work in the care industry comprises $6 trillion, almost a quarter of the U.S. GDP. The care economy is backed by women of color workers, yet they are often underpaid. It is also important to recognize domestic labor as the unpaid side of care work, which is made invisible due to societal expectations that women and girls will perform it.
Economic policies that further women’s participation in the workforce are widely beneficial, as they will prevent families in states with unpaid leave from losing over $20 billion in wages each year. The national GDP could lose $290 billion in 2030 and beyond if the United States does not improve the care economy, which comprises services that support children, the elderly, the disabled, and more. Women’s economic participation has the potential to increase U.S. GDP growth by 4% over the next decade, but we need policies to facilitate it.
IWPR’s new federal policy agenda outlines four major policy areas for advancing gender equity, including caregiving and families, equitable work and wages, reproductive justice and health equity, and education and career advancement. It encompasses 14 targeted policy areas such as paid leave, reproductive healthcare across the lifespan, and college affordability. This federal policy agenda aligns with the idea that we must start crafting our vision for the future now: Frye referred to this as our “affirmative vision” for the future, and Lopez called these policies “generational work.”
Representative Sarah McBride (D-D.E.) entered the discussion to present her goal of passing paid federal leave. This is a policy that touches “every single person, every single family across every background and political persuasion” as Rep. McBride stated. McBride’s message was aspirational for the future to build policies that protect the country and its workforce.
On a similar note, the panelists closed out the briefing by sharing what brings them hope. Gupta spoke about the organizing she is seeing around the country to protect federal victories, Lopez highlighted the successes of the Latin American reproductive rights movement, La Marea Verde, and Frye shared that people do crazy things when they are desperate, assuring the audience that gender equity will win out eventually.
While the day’s discussion was largely driven by concerns over the erosion of women’s rights, it also served as a call to action for creating a future where gender equity is firmly rooted in policy. Frye reminded the audience that “women don’t live single-issue lives,” and as such, policies must address the full spectrum of challenges that women face.
On Wednesday, Feb. 5, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania re-heard a civil case against the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services. The case, Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, represents a decades-long fight by reproductive health organizations to remove Medicaid restrictions on abortion funding.
Medicaid is a government-funded health insurance program that provides coverage for low income individuals and families who meet certain eligibility requirements. Medicaid helps ensure access to essential healthcare services for those who might not otherwise afford them — especially reproductive healthcare as low-income individuals experience unintended pregnancies and seek abortions at significantly higher rates than those with higher incomes. Additionally, research shows that those who are denied abortions are more likely to experience poverty than people who receive them, an effect that lasts up to 4 years after being denied an abortion. This ruling will affect low-income people who can become pregnant by determining whether Medicaid will provide funding for their abortions.
To understand the civil case, readers should understand the history of this issue. The Abortion Control Act was enacted in Pennsylvania in 1982, which banned Medicaid from covering abortion care except in the cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother. That same year, appellants filed Fischer v. Department of Public Welfare, challenging the constitutionality of the Medicaid ban because it violated the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Medicaid Ban in 1985.
34 years later, Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services was filed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Their arguments stated that there is precedent for allowing state Medicaid funds to cover abortion beyond the three exceptions, that there is no “parallel exclusion of coverage” for men” and that pregnancy and childbirth expenses are covered under this program even though they are more expensive than an abortion.
Regardless, the court upheld the Medicaid ban, leading the various healthcare providers to file the case with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which overturned Fischer last January. The Supreme Court determined that providers had standing to pursue claims and that members of the legislature should not be permitted to intervene in the case.It also provided new standards for evaluating discrimination claims. Finally, it sent the case back to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania so the appropriate standards could be applied.
The PA Supreme Court declared that the Medicaid coverage exclusion “treats the fundamental right to reproductive autonomy non-neutrally” because pregnant people seeking an abortion are not provided with funding, in contrast to pregnant people who are planning to carry their pregnancy to term. This implies that the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania will rule in favor of Allegheny Reproductive Health Center and the other providers. However, it could take between a few days to many months for the judges to publish a decision.
Amid nationwide attacks on reproductive health and justice, a new fertility treatment provides hope to those trying to conceive. It’s called in vitro maturation (IVM), and it mirrors most of the procedures of in vitro fertilization (IVF), with one key difference: doctors collect immature eggs instead of mature ones.
IVF provides a way for people struggling with infertility to have children, either personally or via surrogacy. However, as a recent article from The Atlantic mentions, it can be emotionally, financially, and physically draining, as it involves hormone shots, weeks of doctor’s appointments, and it may cost up to $20,000 per cycle. Before the process starts, IVF patients undergo multiple ultrasounds and blood tests. During IVF, the patient with ovaries receives hormonal injections that encourage egg maturation, then the eggs are retrieved. After that, the mature eggs are fertilized by sperm in a lab using a small needle, and the fertilized eggs (now called embryos) are placed in a uterus. If the embryo implants in the uterine wall, the individual is pregnant! A full cycle of IVF can take two or three weeks.
Another type of assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment is IVM, which follows most of the procedures of IVF. The key difference is that doctors collect immature eggs in the IVM process, which allows patients to skip most or all of the hormone shots that IVF uses to increase egg production and maturity. After the immature eggs are collected, they are placed in a cell culture for one to two days, then combined with a protein dimer called cumulin and c-AMP cell signaling molecules to make them mature. IVM procedures are the same as IVF after this step, starting with the fertilization of the mature eggs and the implantation of the embryos inside the uterus.
The American Pregnancy Association estimates that one IVM cycle costs from $5,000 to $7,000 in comparison with $15,000 to $20,000 per IVF cycle. However, because pregnancy rates are slightly lower with IVM, it is not necessarily more cost-effective than IVF, as patients may forgo the cost of IVF’s hormone shots but need to repeat the IVM process. Similarly, one cycle of IVM takes less time than a cycle of IVF, because it takes about a week to complete the required blood tests and transvaginal ultrasounds for IVM, compared to multiple weeks of IVF.
IVM is a better treatment option for patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), recovering from cancer, and those who have a limited number of remaining eggs. Additionally, it can be useful for IVF patients whose eggs are not mature enough when collected. Although patients with blocked, damaged, or removed fallopian tubes, ovulation disorders, premature ovarian failure, uterine fibroids, genetic disorders, and infertility are eligible for IVF, they could also benefit from IVM. On the other hand, patients with normal ovulation patterns experience more success with IVF, demonstrating the importance of choosing a procedure that is right for you.
A recent scientific article on IVM points out several policies that would support commercial and widespread development, including innovation from clinical teams, “a legislative landscape that enables embryos to be used for research,” and education and training centers to teach best practices for clinical IVM. These support systems are integral to upholding personal bodily autonomy and allowing individuals who want children to choose the best path for them. Even as the Trump administration attempts to roll back our rights, medical advancements such as IVM offer new ways to ensure individuals retain access to innovative reproductive options.
On Jan. 20, in front of his family, billionaire tech CEOs and Cabinet members, Donald Trump was once again sworn in as president of the United States. His inaugural speech laid out his extreme policy priorities, ranging from immigration to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and more. He moved quickly to sign a sweeping set of 26 Executive Orders, 12 memorandums and four proclamations addressing these priorities, many of which closely resemble Project 2025’s policy agenda, all while taking questions from reporters in an unprecedented move.
One executive order, entitled “Initial Recissions Of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions,” reversed 78 such orders from the Biden Administration on topics such as the climate crisis. In a more widely discussed move, Trump issued a proclamation pardoning over 1,500 individuals convicted in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and commuted the sentences of 14 more to time served. This action implies that he will permit future violence, as a recent Time article illustrates, striking fear in some of his political enemies. Regardless, it is important to turn an eye to the other statements and actions Trump made on Inauguration Day.
Mass Deportations and Immigration Restrictions
Several of Trump’s inaugural promises have already been upheld due to various executive orders, including declaring a national emergency at the southern border, halting illegal entry, starting mass deportations, reinstating the Remain in Mexico policy, planning to send troops to the southern border, ending the catch and release policy (requiring all migrants to be detained) and designating various cartels and gangs as foreign terrorist organizations.
In fact, his executive orders went even further by suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, directing the establishment of a border wall, ending humanitarian parole for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, tightening immigration laws, restricting federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions and intensifying the screening process for visa seekers. Trump claimed he would close the border, but has not explicitly taken action toward this goal yet.
Climate and Energy
“We will drill, baby, drill.” This phrase encapsulates Trump’s profit-driven attitude towards the environment, as he assured his audience that he would increase drilling for the so-called “liquid gold under our feet,” oil and gas. He claimed this would strengthen the U.S. economy and solve the national energy emergency that he put into effect later that day. To do so, he revoked Biden-era clean energy initiatives and paused the disbursement of funds from the Inflation Reduction Act, which would have invested in domestic clean energy production. This contributes toward two of his inaugural goals, ending the Green New Deal and revoking the electric vehicle mandate.
Although his speech did not mention plans to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and other international climate agreements, suspend leasing of wind energy projects, eliminate restrictions on drilling and extraction in Alaska or review agency activities that might burden development of domestic energy resources, these policies were also passed by Executive Order on Monday.
At the Inauguration, Trump stated that he would establish the External Revenue Service to collect tariffs, duties, and revenues from other countries, take back the Panama Canal, pursue Manifest Destiny onto Mars, reinstate service members expelled from the military for opposing Covid vaccine policies and stop service members from being “subjected to radical political theories and social experiments while on duty,” although it is unclear what this last point means.
While he has not moved to enact these ideas, other promises like establishing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), bringing back free speech by directing the Attorney General to investigate federal policies on online platform censorship and changing the names of geographic locations have become reality via executive orders. The Gulf of Mexico will now be referred to as the “Gulf of America” in federal settings, although this requirement will not hold locally or globally, and the mountain Denali in Alaska, which was renamed to honor Alaska Natives, has reverted to its previous name, “Mount McKinley,” after President McKinley.
Some executive orders were not mentioned in Trump’s inaugural speech, including various policies making it easier to remove employees who disagree with Trump and ending remote work for federal employees. Both orders resemble directives from Project 2025 by removing federal government employees who disagree with the administration’s beliefs and eliminating labor protections.
Despite denying any connection to Project 2025, these are not the only statements or actions that Trump made on Inauguration Day that mirrored its far right agenda. Project 2025 states that oil and natural gas are the “lifeblood of economic growth” and that concern for the environment is unfounded, and Trump paved the way for increased oil and gas extraction. Project 2025 also outlines a closed border, a definition of sex that means “biological sex assigned at birth,” and supports free speech by banning critical race theory and gender ideology from schools and other institutions, all policies and ideas reflected in Trump’s statements and actions on Inauguration Day.
The tone of Trump’s second term is clear. He will prioritize profit over the American people and the planet, permit violence that benefits him, and remove any government officials who challenge his directives. Trump will put America first by ending aid to other nations and extorting them for funds, damaging our global community, and he will send a clear message about who really belongs in the United States — very few of us.
Along with over 400 other human rights organizations, the Feminist Majority Foundation has signed on to a letter written by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights to oppose H.R. 28, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act. This House bill would alter Title IX to block transgender women and girls from participating in federally funded women’s sports programs. In the aftermath of the recent Tennessee v. Cardona case, where a federal district judge ruled that Title IX protections cannot be expanded to include gender identity, the letter from the Leadership Conference represents an important coalition of support for transgender students.
The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025 was introduced on January 3, 2025 by Rep. Gregory Steube (R-FL-17), and passed on January 14, 2025. The New York Times reports that it mirrors the 2023 bill by the same name, which passed the House but not the Senate, and was immediately condemned by the ACLU. The 2023 version would have resolved that federally funded education programs and activities cannot “operate, sponsor, or facilitate athletic programs” that allow individuals “of the male sex” to participate in programs for women or girls. In this bill, “sex” is based on “reproductive biology and genetics at birth.”
The coalition letter outlines multiple issues with H.B. 28, including its discriminatory impact on transgender youth, the lack of attention to athletics barriers that women and girls face, and the danger it poses to the civil rights of all students. This bill invalidates trans identities by referring to trans women and girls as “of the male sex.” Furthermore, it is exclusive, invasive, and single-sided. In a recent press release, President and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center Fatima Goss Graves stated that “it only makes it more likely that women and girls will be targeted and punished based on someone else’s idea of what a woman or girl should look or act like.”
The bill’s provisions focus on banning individuals “of the male sex” from participating in programs for women or girls, and states that it will determine sex based on “reproductive biology and genetics at birth.” However, as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY-14) pointed out, there is no enforcement mechanism, meaning that it is unclear who will investigate athletes’ genetics and what measures they will use to do so. A notable gray area regards intersex people, who may have chromosomes that vary from the commonly regarded, stereotypical XX (female) and XY (male), while also possessing combinations of reproductive organs that differ from the stereotypical sets.
Given this consideration, H.B. 28 even has the potential to target cisgender women and girls, especially women and girls of color. Eurocentric ideals of womanhood have historically, and presently, been used to challenge the success of cisgender female athletes, with contemporary examples including Olympic athletes such as runner Caster Semenya, Algerian boxer Imane Khelif, and Taiwanese boxer Lin Yu-ting. Perceptions of womanhood that are based on “biology,” such as beliefs surrounding appropriate hormone levels, are also inherently based on whiteness.
Finally, H.B. 28 directs the Government Accountability Office to compile one-sided data on the harms that transgender women and girls’ participation in sports causes to their cisgender counterparts, including the benefits that they will lose and any psychological, developmental, participatory, and sociological negative impacts. Creating this body of data is dangerous, as it intentionally omits and ignores the neutral or positive of trans participation in sports. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that an inclusive athletics policy in Connecticut did not detract from cisgender girls’ participation, while the Center for Disease Control’s program, “What Works in Schools,” implied that including transgender people in sports may be beneficial because it reduces experiences of violence, poor mental health, and suicidal thoughts among high school students regardless of sexual identity.
H.B. 28 will now move to the Senate, where it would require seven Democrats to vote with Republicans in order to move past a filibuster.
