Defend Girls Athletics Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Barr, Andy [R-KY-6]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 14, 2025
Bottom line
This bill leverages federal funding to enforce a specific definition of "biological fairness" in women's sports across all federally supported educational institutions, potentially excluding transgender women and girls from female athletic categories.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that elementary schools, secondary schools, and institutions of higher education comply with Executive Order 14201, which aims to keep "men out of women's sports," as a condition for receiving federal funds. It requires annual certification of compliance and establishes strict enforcement mechanisms, including the return of unobligated federal funds and ineligibility for future federal aid for non-compliant institutions.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is essential to protect the integrity of women's sports and ensure fair competition for biological females. They contend that allowing individuals assigned male at birth to compete in women's sports undermines the achievements of female athletes, erases opportunities, and jeopardizes scholarships. They believe it upholds Title IX's original intent by recognizing inherent biological differences that impact athletic performance.
Opponents contend
Opponents argue this bill is discriminatory and targets transgender athletes, particularly transgender women and girls, by excluding them from sports consistent with their gender identity. They contend it would harm the mental and physical well-being of transgender youth, violate principles of inclusion, and potentially lead to legal challenges based on discrimination. Critics also argue it oversteps federal authority into state and local educational matters and could lead to a loss of federal funding for institutions that prioritize inclusive policies.
The bill is short and relatively easy to read, allowing for quick comprehension of its core provisions.
Section 1
Short Title: Defend Girls Athletics Act
This section establishes the official short title of the legislation as the 'Defend Girls Athletics Act.' This is the common name by which the bill would be known and referred to if enacted into law.
Supporters argue
Establishing a clear and concise short title is standard legislative practice, making the bill easily identifiable and understandable to the public and policymakers.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the short title itself, though opponents would object to the substance of the bill it names.
Tradeoffs
None inherent in the short title provision itself.
Section 2(a)
Condition for ESEA Funds: Compliance with EO 14201 for K-12 Schools
This provision amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to require local educational agencies (LEAs) to ensure that all schools under their jurisdiction comply with Executive Order 14201, which is described as relating to "keeping men out of women's sports." Compliance with this Executive Order becomes a mandatory condition for LEAs to receive any federal funds under the ESEA.
Section 2(b)
Annual Certification and Reporting for K-12 Schools
This section mandates that local educational agencies (LEAs) annually certify their compliance with the requirements of Executive Order 14201 to their respective State educational agencies (SEAs) by August 15. Subsequently, SEAs are required to report any non-compliant LEAs to the Secretary of Education by September 15 each year.
Section 2(c)
Enforcement for K-12 Schools
This section outlines the consequences for non-compliance by local educational agencies (LEAs) or for State educational agencies (SEAs) failing to submit required reports. If non-compliance is determined, the Secretary of Education must direct the agency to return any unobligated federal funds received under the ESEA and render them ineligible to receive future ESEA funds until compliance is re-established.
Section 3(a)
Condition for Federal Funds: Compliance with EO 14201 for Higher Education
This provision amends the Higher Education Act (HEA) to make institutions of higher education (IHEs) ineligible for any federal funds or financial assistance, including participation in federal student loan programs, unless they annually certify compliance with Executive Order 14201 by July 1. This extends the "biological fairness" requirement to colleges and universities.
Section 3(b)
Enforcement for Higher Education
This section specifies that if an institution of higher education (IHE) violates the compliance requirements, the Secretary of Education must direct the institution to return any unobligated funds received under the Higher Education Act. Furthermore, the IHE will be deemed ineligible to receive future funds or participate in programs under the HEA until it demonstrates compliance.
Section 3(b) amending Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
Program Participation Agreements Amendment
This provision amends Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which lists the conditions an institution of higher education must agree to in order to participate in federal student financial assistance programs. It adds a new condition, requiring institutions to comply with the new Section 124, which mandates biological fairness in women's sports.
This provision adds compliance with the new 'biological fairness in women's sports' requirements (Section 124) as a mandatory condition for institutions of higher education to enter into Program Participation Agreements, which are essential for offering federal student financial assistance programs.
Section 3(b) amending Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to integrate new requirements into existing statutory frameworks for enforcement. By amending an established section, the bill ensures the new policy is legally binding within the existing administrative structure for federal student aid.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this amendment ensures the new policy is seamlessly integrated into the legal and administrative structure governing federal student aid, providing a clear and enforceable legal basis for compliance by institutions of higher education.
Case against: Critics would argue that embedding this controversial policy into the fundamental agreements for federal student aid makes it harder for institutions to avoid compliance without jeopardizing their entire federal funding stream, thus expanding the reach and impact of a discriminatory policy.
Estimated impact: Significant, as it directly links an institution's ability to offer federal student loans and grants to its compliance with the bill's provisions, potentially affecting millions of students who rely on federal financial aid to attend college.