Republican California lawmakers have publicly criticized Governor Gavin Newsom and the state’s education department for their refusal to comply with Title IX regulations regarding the participation of transgender athletes in girls’ sports. The state’s rejection of the U.S. Department of Education’s proposed resolution agreement has drawn sharp criticism from GOP representatives, who argue that the decision undermines federal law and women’s athletic programs.
Rep. Kevin Kiley, a Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives and Chair of the House K-12 Education Subcommittee, accused the state of prioritizing political interests over the protection of young women’s civil rights and safety. “California’s blatant disregard for the safety and civil rights of young women and girls is shameful,” Kiley stated, warning that the refusal to comply with the resolution agreement could lead to the loss of federal funding and further erosion of the integrity of female athletics.
State Reps. James Gallagher and Kate Sanchez echoed similar sentiments, emphasizing the importance of fairness and the rule of law. “California continues to push the dangerous insanity of letting men compete in women’s sports,” Gallagher said, while Sanchez condemned the state’s education department for “blatantly violating Title IX,” arguing that the decision could cost the state millions in federal funding.
The controversy has intensified following the recent participation of transgender high school track and field athlete AB Hernandez in girls’ competitions during the California state championships. Hernandez’s involvement in the events sparked widespread backlash, particularly from President Donald Trump, who signed an executive order prohibiting transgender athletes from competing against biological girls and women in sports. The administration’s stance has fueled national debates over the role of Title IX in regulating athlete participation and the protection of women’s sports.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) previously announced that the California Department of Education (CDE) and the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) were found in violation of Title IX. The proposed resolution agreement included measures to enforce biology-based definitions of ‘male’ and ‘female’ and required schools to comply with Title IX by preventing male athletes from participating in female sports. However, both entities rejected the agreement, stating they did not agree with the OCR’s analysis.
State officials, including Superintendent Tony Thurmond, have defended their position, arguing that the decision reflects a commitment to inclusivity and the rights of all students. However, critics like Kiley argue that the state’s stance compromises the safety and fairness of women’s sports, potentially opening the door for biological males to compete in events previously reserved for female athletes.
While the state’s stance has drawn criticism from the Republican Party, it has also sparked a broader national conversation about the interpretation and enforcement of Title IX. The issue remains a contentious one, with advocates for transgender rights emphasizing the importance of inclusion and equality, while opponents argue for the protection of traditional sports programs and the rights of female athletes.