No Goodwill for Harming Women Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Tenney, Claudia [R-NY-24]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 25, 2026
Bottom line
H.R. 9487 seeks to use tax policy to disincentivize professional women's sports leagues from allowing transgender women, defined as biological males, to compete.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent professional women's sports franchises from amortizing certain intangible assets, such as goodwill, if they permit biological males to participate in their sport. It defines "sex" based on reproductive biology and genetics at birth for this purpose. The Secretary of the Treasury is directed to issue regulations for verifying such franchises and participation.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill protects the integrity and fairness of women's sports by ensuring that only biological females compete in categories designated for them. They contend that allowing biological males to compete undermines opportunities for female athletes, citing inherent physiological advantages. The bill aims to use tax incentives to uphold what proponents view as the original intent of women's sports.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue this bill is discriminatory, targeting transgender women and excluding them from sports. They might contend it is an overreach of government into private sports organizations and could lead to legal challenges. Critics may also argue that the bill's definition of "sex" is overly narrow and does not account for gender identity, potentially harming transgender athletes and promoting exclusion.
The bill text is very short and straightforward, allowing for quick comprehension of its core mechanism.
Section 2(a), amending Section 197(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
Prohibition on Amortization for Certain Women's Sports Franchises
This provision modifies federal tax law to disallow the amortization of intangible assets, such as goodwill, for professional sports franchises that are designated for females but allow individuals identified as male by their reproductive biology and genetics at birth to participate. This means such franchises would not be able to deduct these costs over time, potentially increasing their taxable income.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this provision is a necessary financial tool to protect the competitive equity of women's sports. By removing a tax benefit, it encourages leagues to adopt policies that ensure fair competition for biological females, thereby preserving opportunities and recognition for these athletes.
Critics contend
Opponents would contend that this provision is discriminatory and punitive, specifically targeting sports organizations that adopt inclusive policies for transgender athletes. They would argue it interferes with the autonomy of sports leagues and could lead to legal challenges based on discrimination, while also potentially harming the financial viability of women's sports.
Tradeoffs
The bill creates a tension between the financial interests of sports franchises and their policies regarding athlete eligibility. It balances the perceived need to protect women's sports categories for biological females against principles of inclusion for transgender athletes and the autonomy of sports organizations.
Defines "sex" for the purposes of the bill as "an individual's reproductive biology and genetics at birth."
Section 2(a), amending Section 197(e)(8)(B)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms within the section where they are used. However, its specificity is highly consequential for the bill's intent and impact.
Case for: Proponents argue this precise definition of "sex" is essential to clearly delineate who the bill intends to exclude from women's sports, ensuring that the policy effectively protects biological females. It removes ambiguity and aligns with a traditional understanding of sex in sports.
Case against: Opponents would argue that this definition is intentionally narrow and exclusionary, specifically designed to target transgender women. They would contend it disregards contemporary understandings of gender identity and could be seen as discriminatory under various legal frameworks.
Estimated impact: This definition is fundamental to the bill's entire impact, determining which athletes are considered "male" for the purpose of the tax penalty, thereby affecting all professional women's sports franchises and transgender athletes.