To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose an excise tax on certain institutions of higher education that allow male participation in female intercollegiate athletic programs or events.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 13, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to discourage the participation of biological males in female collegiate sports by imposing a significant financial penalty on private and non-state higher education institutions that allow it, while also preventing these costs from being passed directly to students.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a new 10% excise tax on the aggregate intercollegiate athletic expenditures of certain institutions of higher education. This tax is triggered if an institution permits, for any portion of a taxable year, the participation of an individual whose sex is male in any intercollegiate athletic program or event designated for females. The bill explicitly defines 'male' and 'female' based on reproductive systems and includes an anti-pass-through requirement, prohibiting institutions from increasing tuition or mandatory fees to offset this tax.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill protects the integrity of women's sports by ensuring fair competition and equal opportunities for biological females, preventing biological advantages from undermining female athletic achievements. They contend it upholds Title IX's original intent by preserving distinct categories for male and female athletes and provides a necessary incentive for institutions to maintain these distinctions.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that this bill is discriminatory, targeting transgender athletes and undermining efforts towards inclusion and equality in sports. They might contend that it interferes with institutional autonomy, could lead to complex and invasive enforcement mechanisms regarding biological sex definitions, and imposes an undue financial burden on institutions.
The bill text is very short and can be read quickly, but its implications are broad and complex, requiring significant time for full evaluation.
Section 1(a), new section 4960A(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Imposition of Excise Tax on Institutions Allowing Male Participation in Female Sports
This provision establishes a new 10% excise tax on the total intercollegiate athletic expenditures of certain higher education institutions. This tax is triggered if, at any point during a taxable year, the institution allows an individual identified as male to participate in any intercollegiate athletic program or event designated for females.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this tax is a necessary financial incentive to ensure that institutions maintain separate and fair athletic opportunities for biological females, protecting them from perceived competitive disadvantages.
Critics contend
Opponents would contend that this tax is punitive and discriminatory, forcing institutions to exclude transgender women from sports and potentially violating principles of inclusion and equality.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the perceived need to protect female sports categories with concerns about the inclusion and rights of transgender athletes.
Section 1(a), new section 4960A(b)(2), (3), and (4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Biological Definitions of Sex for Tax Purposes
This section explicitly defines 'male' as an individual who has, had, will have, or would have (but for a developmental or genetic anomaly or historical accident) the reproductive system that produces, transports, and utilizes sperm for fertilization. Similarly, 'female' is defined as an individual who has, had, will have, or would have the reproductive system that produces, transports, and utilizes eggs for fertilization. 'Sex' is explicitly defined as an individual's biological sex, either male or female.
Section 1(a), new section 4960A(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Prohibition on Passing Tax Costs to Students
This provision prohibits any institution subject to the excise tax from increasing tuition or mandatory fees charged to enrolled students in any academic year as a direct result of their tax liability under this section. It also mandates the Secretary of Education to promulgate regulations to enforce this requirement.
Defines 'applicable institution of higher education' as any eligible educational institution (as defined in section 25A(f)(2) of the IRC) which is not described in the first sentence of section 511(a)(2)(B) (relating to State colleges and universities). This means the tax primarily targets private, non-profit, and for-profit institutions, explicitly excluding public state colleges and universities.
Section 1(a), new section 4960A(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for referencing existing definitions in the tax code, but it makes the scope of the bill less immediately obvious to a casual reader.
Case for: Proponents might argue that focusing on non-state institutions avoids potential federalism conflicts or challenges related to taxing state entities, or that it targets institutions that have more autonomy in setting their policies.
Case against: Critics could argue that excluding state colleges and universities creates an uneven playing field, allowing public institutions to continue policies that the bill aims to discourage without penalty, thus undermining the bill's stated purpose.
Estimated impact: Significantly limits the number of institutions subject to the tax, potentially reducing the overall revenue generated and the breadth of policy change.