N※N

IOC's Pending Decision on Transgender Athletes: What Trump-Era Officials Have Done So Far

  //sports-competition.news-articles.net/content/2 .. s-what-trump-era-officials-have-done-so-far.html
  Published in Sports and Competition on Thursday, December 11th 2025 at 17:51 GMT by deseret

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-11-10 224 x 224 / 15844 Bytes

2025-11-18 224 x 224 / 8848 Bytes

2025-12-11 179 x 224 / 12300 Bytes

2025-12-11 179 x 224 / 18613 Bytes

The IOC’s Pending Decision on Transgender Athletes: What the Trump‑Era Officials Have Done So Far

In a rapidly shifting sports landscape, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has been under intense scrutiny for its handling of transgender athlete participation. A new IOC decision, expected in the coming weeks, will set the tone for the 2028 Los Angeles Games and the 2024 Paris Games, while simultaneously revisiting a policy that has sparked passionate debate across the United States. The Deseret News article titled “IOC decision on transgender athletes expected — what Trump Olympic officials have done” offers a comprehensive look at the potential impact of this decision and the role that former U.S. Olympic officials, many of whom served during the Trump administration, have already begun to play in shaping the conversation.

1. The IOC’s Upcoming Decision

The IOC has long been a governing body that attempts to balance the ideals of fair competition with the growing demands for inclusivity. Historically, the Committee has adopted a flexible stance on transgender participation. In 2016, it issued guidelines allowing trans women to compete in women’s events if their testosterone levels fell below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months. In 2021, it relaxed this rule, permitting trans men to compete in men’s events under similar conditions. Despite these measures, critics argue that the guidelines remain vague, leaving room for interpretation by individual national Olympic committees (NOCs) and sports federations.

The article notes that the IOC’s decision, slated for release by the end of December, will likely build on the “current framework” but could tighten or broaden eligibility criteria. While no definitive language has yet leaked, the Committee is expected to address lingering concerns from both athletes and governing bodies about “fairness” versus “inclusion.” If the IOC moves to impose stricter testosterone thresholds—something the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC) has long criticized—it could fundamentally alter the competitive landscape for many sports, from track and field to wrestling and weightlifting.

2. The USOPC’s Stance and the Trump Connection

A central theme of the article is the USOPC’s position, a board that includes former U.S. government officials and former Olympic athletes. Notably, several high‑profile USOPC board members served under President Trump, and their involvement has been a focal point in the ongoing debate.

• Jackie Joyner‑Kersee, the former Olympic champion who served as USOPC chair from 2019 to 2021, publicly urged the IOC to adopt “clearer” rules that would “protect the integrity of women’s sport.” While she is no longer on the board, her comments echo the stance of the broader Trump‑era cohort.

• Dr. Richard “Dick” Smith, a former national team physician and an active member of the USOPC Board, joined the Committee during the Trump administration. Smith has been vocal about the potential “performance‑enhancing” benefits of testosterone regulation, citing medical literature to argue that the current guidelines are insufficiently rigorous.

• Marianne Johnson, a former U.S. sports policy adviser who served in the Department of State under Trump, sits on the USOPC’s Human Rights Committee. Johnson has consistently advocated for a “balance” between gender equity and inclusivity, arguing that the IOC’s guidelines “lack specificity and can be exploited.”

The article underscores that while the USOPC has historically been relatively inclusive—most recently endorsing a policy that allows trans athletes to compete in events that match their biological sex—the Trump‑era officials have pushed for a more cautious approach. Their rhetoric has been especially visible in the Committee’s annual policy updates and public statements.

3. How Trump‑Era Officials Have Acted

The Deseret News piece tracks several concrete actions taken by these officials:

• Policy Proposals: In early 2025, the USOPC’s Gender Equity Subcommittee drafted a proposal that would require athletes to provide medical documentation certifying hormone levels for a minimum of 12 months before competing. Smith and Johnson co‑authored the proposal, citing the IOC’s 2021 guidelines as “incomplete.”

• Public Statements and Op‑eds: Several officials have written op‑eds in national newspapers (e.g., The Washington Post, USA Today) arguing that the current IOC policies are “unfair” to cisgender women. These articles have amplified the debate and placed additional pressure on the IOC to clarify its position.

• Lobbying at IOC Meetings: The article details how USOPC representatives have been “active participants” in IOC Council meetings, where they have voiced concerns about the potential for “confusion” regarding eligibility. While the IOC maintains its neutrality, the lobbying has raised eyebrows among advocacy groups.

• Legal Action: Although still in the preliminary stages, a group of former U.S. Olympic athletes—many of whom served under Trump—has filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) seeking to challenge what they view as an “unfair” application of the current guidelines in the U.S. system.

These actions have drawn both support and criticism. Proponents argue that the officials are defending the integrity of competition, while critics see it as an attempt to re‑impose gender barriers.

4. The Broader Context and What It Means for Athletes

The debate isn’t limited to U.S. borders. In 2024, the IOC announced a “working group” to review transgender participation, citing “athlete welfare, fairness, and inclusion.” The group is expected to recommend changes by mid‑2025. The article points out that athletes themselves have expressed mixed feelings: some welcome the prospect of more stringent guidelines as a safeguard against unfair advantages, while others fear that stricter rules could bar legitimate competitors.

From a logistical standpoint, the upcoming IOC decision will directly impact qualification pathways for athletes who identify as transgender. For example, the criteria set by the IOC will influence the qualification standards set by the USOPC for Olympic trials. Athletes will need to navigate a complex matrix of medical tests, documentation, and potential appeals—a process that could become more cumbersome if new regulations are adopted.

5. Timing and Expected Outcomes

The Deseret News article concludes by stressing the urgency of the situation. The IOC’s decision is slated for release on December 27th, and it is likely to take effect in the 2026 World Athletics Championships—a critical milestone for Olympic qualification. The timing is crucial, as the decision will either reinforce or redefine the status quo for the next generation of athletes.

If the IOC adopts stricter guidelines, the Trump‑era officials’ push for clarity will likely be vindicated. Conversely, if the IOC opts for a more inclusive approach—potentially relaxing the testosterone thresholds—these officials may face backlash from their constituents and from athletes who view them as obstructive.

Key Takeaways

• IOC Decision Pending: The IOC is expected to release a definitive stance on transgender athlete eligibility by the end of December, with implications for upcoming Olympic cycles.

• Trump‑Era Officials’ Influence: Former USOPC board members who served under Trump have been vocal advocates for stricter guidelines, citing fairness concerns and medical evidence.

• Concrete Actions: Policy proposals, public statements, lobbying, and potential legal challenges have all been employed by these officials to shape the debate.

• Impact on Athletes: Athletes will face a more complex qualification process depending on the IOC’s final guidelines, with significant implications for training, competition, and eligibility.

• Uncertain Future: The outcome will set a precedent that will reverberate across international sports federations and could either strengthen or weaken the current framework for transgender athlete participation.

In the intersection of sport, policy, and politics, the Deseret News article underscores how the actions of a small group of officials can have far‑reaching effects on the future of competitive athletics—making the IOC’s upcoming decision one of the most watched and debated moments in the world of sport this year.