Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Imposes a tax on colleges that allow transgender women in female sports.
The problem
Some colleges allow male-identifying athletes to compete in women's sports programs. Supporters argue this raises fairness concerns in female athletics.
The proposal
Creates an excise tax on higher education institutions that permit male participation in female intercollegiate athletic programs or events.
The impact
Colleges would face financial penalties. Transgender athletes, schools, and women's sports programs would be affected by potential policy changes.
Supporters argue biological differences create competitive advantages. They believe this incentivizes schools to maintain sex-separated sports categories to protect opportunities for female athletes.
Uses tax policy rather than direct bans. Allows institutions flexibility while creating financial pressure to make specific athletic eligibility choices.
Proponents argue it preserves athletic scholarships and roster spots for female-identified athletes. Maintains sex-separated competition as originally intended.
Critics argue the tax may violate equal protection principles and discriminate against transgender individuals. Legal challenges could be costly and uncertain.
The bill doesn't specify how 'male participation' is defined or verified. This creates ambiguity about which athletes trigger the tax and may lead to inconsistent application.
Taxes decrease resources for academic programs, financial aid, and facilities. Student bodies bear indirect costs through reduced institutional investment.
Critics argue athletic eligibility is traditionally a state and institutional decision. Federal tax penalties may exceed appropriate federal authority over education.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
HR 10730
Healthy Communities Act of 2026
HR 5349
TAS Act
HR 9496
End Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act
HR 997
National Taxpayer Advocate Enhancement Act of 2025
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.