International
Trump signs executive order banning gender-confused men from women’s and girls’ sports
From LifeSiteNews
The new executive order declares it ‘the policy of the United States to rescind all funds from educational programs’ that allow gender-confused men to compete against women and girls and extends beyond schools to the Olympics.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning men, including those who “identify” as female, from participating in women’s sports in order to “protect opportunities for women and girls to compete in safe and fair sports.”
“The war on women’s sports is over,” declared the president to the delight of the crowd.
“The war on women’s sports is over.” pic.twitter.com/32Z7Htwv8M
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) February 5, 2025
The scene in the White House East Room on Wednesday where the president was flanked by dozens of women and girl athletes who had been waiting for this moment presented a stark contrast with Joe Biden’s action on his first day in office, when he signed an executive order defending students’ ability to compete in sports based on their perceived “gender identity.”
Prominent in the crowd standing behind President Trump was former collegiate swimmer Riley Gaines who, as the president noted, has been on the forefront of the battle to keep men out of women’s school and professional athletics.
Gaines became a popular, outspoken activist after “losing” to a gender-confused male, William “Lia” Thomas, at a National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) swimming championship in 2022.
Title IX’s original intent restored
“From now on, women’s sports will be only for women,” said Trump.
He warned educational institutions, “If you let men take over women’s sports teams or invade your locker rooms, you will be investigated for violations of Title IX and risk your federal funding.”
READ: ‘Transgender’ males are brutally injuring female athletes, and sports officials don’t care
Passed in 1972, Title IX was enacted in order to prohibit sex-based discrimination in schools that receive federal funding. In recent years, Democrats have contorted its original intent to include gender-confused males and females under its umbrella.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt explained that the order “upholds the promise of Title IX” and requires “immediate action, including enforcement actions, against schools and athletic associations” that currently permit gender-confused males to to participate in women’s sports and use locker rooms previously reserved for women and girls only.
‘Demeaning, unfair, and dangerous’ for female athletes, no more
“In recent years, many educational institutions and athletic associations have allowed men to compete in women’s sports,” notes the executive order, aptly titled “Keeping Men out of Women’s Sports.” “This is demeaning, unfair, and dangerous to women and girls, and denies women and girls the equal opportunity to participate and excel in competitive sports.”
“As some Federal courts have recognized, ‘ignoring fundamental biological truths between the two sexes deprives women and girls of meaningful access to educational facilities,’” it continues.
Therefore, it is the policy of the United States to rescind all funds from educational programs that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities, which results in the endangerment, humiliation, and silencing of women and girls and deprives them of privacy.
It shall also be the policy of the United States to oppose male competitive participation in women’s sports more broadly, as a matter of safety, fairness, dignity, and truth.
Trump admin to Olympics: ‘America categorically rejects transgender lunacy’
The president’s directive extends beyond U.S. schools and sports leagues to the upcoming 2028 Summer Olympics to be held in Los Angeles.
Trump authorized Secretary of State Marco Rubio to inform the International Olympic Committee that “America categorically rejects transgender lunacy. We want them to change everything having to do with the Olympics and having to do with this absolutely ridiculous subject.”
He further directed Homeland Security head Kristi Noem to “deny any and all visa applications made by men attempting to fraudulently enter the United States while identifying themselves as women athletes to try and get into the Games.”
NCAA welcomes a ‘clear, national standard’
The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) seemed to welcome the president’s executive order, saying it provides a “clear, national standard.”
“The NCAA is an organization made up of 1,100 colleges and universities in all 50 states that collectively enroll more than 530,000 student-athletes,” noted a statement by NCAA President Charlie Baker. “We strongly believe that clear, consistent and uniform eligibility standards would best serve today’s student-athletes instead of a patchwork of conflicting state laws and court decisions. To that end, President Trump’s order provides a clear, national standard.”
“The NCAA Board of Governors is reviewing the executive order and will take necessary steps to align NCAA policy in the coming days, subject to further guidance from the administration,” continued Baker. “The Association will continue to help foster welcoming environments on campuses for all student-athletes. We stand ready to assist schools as they look for ways to support any student-athletes affected by changes in the policy.”
Soon after Trump added his signature to his latest executive order, Harvard University fell in line with the order, removing its “transgender inclusion” policy from its athletics website.
LGBT activist groups infuriated
GLAAD, an organization that identifies itself as “the world’s largest LGBTQ media advocacy organization,” was infuriated by the executive order, claiming that men confused about their sex should be recognized as “women” and allowed to compete against women “if they want.”
LGBTQ+ Washington, D.C., lobbying group, the Human Rights Campaign, also attacked the executive order, as did National Women’s Law Center president and CEO, Fatima Goss Graves.
Graves insisted that gender-confused students “do not pose threats to sports” or schools, despite numerous incidents of “transgender” males severely injuring women and girls in competitions, among other harms.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
All eyes will be on the Supreme Court later this week when the justices conference on Friday to decide whether to grant a petition for writ of certiorari on a high-stakes climate lawsuit out of Colorado. The case is a part of the long-running lawfare campaign seeking to extract billions of dollars in jury awards from oil companies on claims of nebulous damages caused by carbon emissions.
In Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., et al. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, major American energy companies are asking the Supreme Court to decide whether federal law precludes state law nuisance claims targeting interstate and global emissions. This comes as the City and County of Boulder, Colo. sued a long list of energy companies under Colorado state nuisance law for alleged impacts from global climate change.
The Colorado Supreme Court allowed a lower state trial court decision to go through, improbably finding that federal law did not preempt state law claims. The central question hangs on whether the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) preempts state common law public nuisance claims related to the regulation of carbon emissions. In this case, as in at least 10 other cases that have been decided in favor of the defendant companies, the CAA clearly does preempt Colorado law. It seems inevitable that the Supreme Court, if it grants the cert petition, would make the same ruling.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
Such a finding by the Supreme Court would reinforce a 2021 ruling by the Second Circuit Appeals Court that also upheld this longstanding principle of federal law. In City of New York v. Chevron Corp. (2021), the Second Circuit ruled that municipalities may not use state tort law to hold multinational companies liable for climate damages, since global warming is a uniquely international concern that touches upon issues of federalism and foreign policy. Consequently, the court called for the explicit application of federal common law, with the CAA granting the Environmental Protection Agency – not federal courts – the authority to regulate domestic greenhouse gas emissions. This Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, should weigh in here and find in the same way.
Boulder-associated attorneys have become increasingly open to acknowledging the judicial lawfare inherent in their case, as they try to supplant federal regulatory jurisdiction with litigation meant to force higher energy prices rise for consumers. David Bookbinder, an environmental lawyer associated with the Boulder legal team, said the quiet part out loud in a recent Federalist Society webinar titled “Can State Courts Set Global Climate Policy. “Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax,” Bookbinder stated plainly. “You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable. The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products … The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products.”
Oh.
While Bookbinder recently distanced himself from the case, no notice of withdrawal had appeared in the court’s records as of this writing. Bookbinder also writes that “Gas prices and climate change policy have become political footballs because neither party in Congress has had the courage to stand up to the oil and gas lobby. Both sides fear the spin machine, so consumers get stuck paying the bill.”
Let’s be honest: The “spin machine” works in all directions. Make no mistake about it, consumers are already getting stuck paying the bill related to this long running lawfare campaign even though the defendants have repeatedly been found not to be liable in case after case. The many millions of dollars in needless legal costs sustained by the dozens of defendants named in these cases ultimately get passed to consumers via higher energy costs. This isn’t some evil conspiracy by the oil companies: It is Business Management 101.
Because the climate alarm lobby hasn’t been able to force its long-sought national carbon tax through the legislative process, sympathetic activists and plaintiff firms now pursue this backdoor effort in the nation’s courts. But their problem is that the law on this is crystal clear, and it is long past time for the Supreme Court to step in and put a stop to this serial abuse of the system.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
President Trump revealed Wednesday afternoon that U.S. authorities intercepted a Cuba-bound oil tanker off the Venezuelan coast, a dramatic move aimed at tightening the squeeze on illicit oil networks operating throughout the region. Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump described the vessel as “a very large tanker — the largest one ever seized in action,” hinting that more developments are coming. He declined to get into specifics, saying only that the operation happened “for a very good reason.” When asked about the tanker’s crude, Trump didn’t overcomplicate it. “Well, we keep it, I guess,” he said.
According to a U.S. official familiar with the operation, the seizure was executed by the Coast Guard with support from the U.S. Navy after a federal judge green-lit the warrant roughly two weeks ago. Another official told the New York Times the ship — identified as the Skipper — had been sailing under a falsified flag and has a documented history of trafficking illicit Iranian oil. The vessel, although carrying Venezuelan crude at the time, was seized because of those Iranian smuggling ties, not because of any direct connection to Nicolás Maduro’s regime.
Today, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Homeland Security Investigations, and the United States Coast Guard, with support from the Department of War, executed a seizure warrant for a crude oil tanker used to transport sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran. For multiple… pic.twitter.com/dNr0oAGl5x
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) December 10, 2025
Vanguard, a UK-based maritime risk firm, confirmed Wednesday that the Skipper fits the profile of a tanker previously sanctioned by the United States for operating under the alias Adisa while moving banned Iranian oil. A source speaking to Politico said the ship was on its way to Cuba, where state-run Cubametales intended to flip the cargo to Asian brokers — an increasingly common workaround as U.S. sanctions isolate both Havana and Caracas from traditional buyers. With most Venezuelan product now flowing to China under the sanctions regime, oil traders began recalibrating almost immediately after the news broke. Prices ticked upward modestly as markets waited to learn whether any Venezuelan crude was on board and how much would be effectively taken off the table.
Maduro, for his part, avoided directly mentioning the seizure during a speech later Wednesday, instead railing against the United States and claiming Venezuela’s military stands ready “to break the teeth of the North American empire, if necessary.” His bluster did little to obscure the reality: the Trump administration just disrupted yet another shadowy oil operation linking Caracas, Havana, and Tehran — and sent a clear signal that these networks will be confronted, tanker by tanker.
Carney’s Toronto cabinet meetings cost $530,000
The Trickster Politics of the Tanker Ban are Hiding a Much Bigger Reckoning for B.C.
While Trump has southern border secure, hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants still flooding in from Canada
Alberta will use provincial laws to stop Canadian gov’t from trying to confiscate legal firearms
Integration Or Indignation: Whose Strategy Worked Best Against Trump?
What the Data Shows About the New Canada-Alberta Pipeline Opportunity
Canada’s EV Mandate Is Running On Empty
-
Crime2 days agoInside the Fortified Sinaloa-Linked Compound Canada Still Can’t Seize After 12 Years of Legal War
-
Great Reset1 day agoProposed ban on euthanasia for mental illness sparks passionate debate in Canada’s Parliament
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day agoLiberals gain support for ‘hate speech’ bill targeting Bible passages against homosexuality
-
Automotive19 hours agoThe $50 Billion Question: EVs Never Delivered What Ottawa Promised
-
Business1 day agoConservative MP warns Liberals’ national AI plan could increase gov’t surveillance
-
Health1 day agoUS podcaster Glenn Beck extends a lifeline to a Saskatchewan woman waiting for MAiD
-
Business1 day agoStorm clouds of uncertainty as BC courts deal another blow to industry and investment
-
National2 days agoLiberal bill “targets Christians” by removing religious exemption in hate-speech law