Can Donald Trump ban trans women from the Olympics?

The short answer is no. The reality, however, is more complicated—and increasingly bleak.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is the sole governing body for Olympic competition. Its regulations supersede national laws when it comes to eligibility criteria for athletes. A host country cannot unilaterally decide who gets to compete. If a nation wants to host the Games, it must abide by the IOC’s framework—no exceptions.

That doesn’t mean Trump’s order is meaningless. Even if he cannot directly dictate IOC policy, he can weaponise US immigration laws to make participation impossible for trans athletes by barring them from entering the country. The US has done this before—South African athletes were banned during apartheid, and the 2017 Muslim ban saw athletes struggle to compete on American soil.

Unlike those cases, however, an attempt to exclude trans women from the Olympics would violate the Olympic Charter, which explicitly prohibits discrimination based on gender identity. A Fundamental Principle of Olympism is that “The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have access to the practice of sport, without discrimination of any kind in respect of internationally recognised human rights within the remit of the Olympic Movement.”

If enforced, such a move could lead to sanctions against the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC), or in an extreme scenario, the removal of the Games from Los Angeles altogether.

This level of resistance from the IOC might have been plausible under Thomas Bach’s leadership. Bach has refused to cave to anti-trans pressure, standing by athletes like Imane Khelif and Li You-ting, who were attacked by anti-trans activists simply for not being ‘feminine’ enough—propaganda fuelled by Russian disinformation campaigns.

Unfortunately, Bach steps down in March 2025, and nearly every major candidate vying to replace him is positioning themselves to ban trans women from Olympic competition outright. Instead of tackling the rampant sexual abuse scandals that plague every sport, these men (and one woman) have decided that “protecting women” means banning a non-existent threat.

Among the frontrunners is Sebastian Coe, President of World Athletics, whose anti-trans stance is so entrenched he might as well be lodged in JK Rowling’s colon. He has already implemented an outright ban on trans women in athletics and is, unsurprisingly, the candidate most favoured by the UK media.

The IOC’s current President’s favourite for the presidency is Kirsty Coventry, an Olympic gold medallist from Zimbabwe. At 41, she is seen as too young and inexperienced, and in an effort to gain traction, she has recently pivoted toward an anti-trans stance—though she is not as radical as others in the race. Yet.

Another serious contender is Juan Antonio Samaranch Jr., son of the infamous former IOC president who served for 21 years. He openly declared in his campaign launch: “The IOC has a fundamental duty to safeguard women’s sport by adopting a policy to maintain unambiguous distinctions between men’s and women’s categories.”

The remaining candidates do not offer much hope either. HRH Prince Feisal Al Hussein of Jordan represents a country that criminalised being trans in 2018.

David Lappartient, President of the International Cycling Union, has already enforced a ban on trans women in cycling.

The final two—Johan Eliasch and Morinari Watanabe—do not yet have a public record on this issue, but as men in their 60s operating in hyper-conservative sporting circles, it’s difficult to imagine them defying the overwhelming political pressure that is driving the global anti-trans movement.

So, can Trump ban trans women from the Olympics? No.

Will it matter? Also no.

By the time the 2028 LA Olympics arrive, the IOC itself will have likely done the job for him.