By Vanguard Staff
President Donald Trump escalated his political crusade against transgender student-athletes this week, targeting California with threats to cut off federal funding unless the state bars transgender girls from participating in school sports. His remarks, widely condemned as transphobic and legally dubious, drew a swift and defiant response from state leaders, including Senator Scott Wiener.
In a Tuesday morning post on Truth Social, Trump referenced a transgender high school track athlete from Southern California — AB Hernandez of Jurupa Valley High School — and ordered that she be barred from competing in the CIF State Championships scheduled for this weekend.
“THIS IS NOT FAIR, AND TOTALLY DEMEANING TO WOMEN AND GIRLS,” Trump wrote. “Please be hereby advised that large scale Federal Funding will be held back, maybe permanently, if the Executive Order on this subject matter is not adhered to.”
Trump also took aim at Governor Gavin Newsom, claiming he would speak to the governor to determine “which way he wants to go.” Trump referenced a previous Newsom remark suggesting that allowing transgender girls to compete in female sports presented questions of “fairness.”
In response, State Senator Scott Wiener (D–San Francisco) issued a forceful statement, invoking a similar case in Maine, where a federal judge ruled against the Trump administration’s attempt to defund the state over its support of transgender student-athletes.
“Trump is now targeting California just like he targeted Maine: Threatening to withhold federal funds if California doesn’t follow his illegal edicts targeting transgender people,” Wiener stated. “California law protects trans people. That won’t change. Maine won in court. So will California. There’s only one answer to a bully: No. As Maine Governor Janet Mills said, ‘See you in court.’”
Earlier this month, a federal judge sided with Maine in a legal challenge after the Trump administration froze funding for the state’s child nutrition programs. The court found that Maine was likely to succeed on the merits of its case, and the administration ultimately backed down and restored the funding.
Now, California may face a similar legal battle — with AB Hernandez at the center of the political storm.
A junior athlete, Hernandez is the only openly transgender competitor at this year’s CIF State Track and Field Championships. She currently ranks No. 1 statewide in the triple jump and No. 2 in the long jump. Despite the media attention and public threats from the highest levels of government, Hernandez has remained focused on her sport.
“I just relax and … do what I can do, hone in, and leave it all out on the field,” she told City News Service at the CIF Southern Section Masters Meet last weekend.
Her mother, Nereyda Hernandez, voiced pride in her daughter’s perseverance: “She’s successful. She is first place, and it’s her third year. I couldn’t be any prouder regardless of all the noise.”
But that “noise” includes online harassment and death threats, according to Daisy Gardner, a family friend. “Some of the scariest people are coming out of the woodwork saying they wish harm on this family and this kid,” she said. “I cannot tell you how impressive it has been to see a child compete and focus on her sport.”
The backlash has also drawn the attention of political figures like Sonja Shaw, board president of the Chino Valley Unified School District and a candidate for State Superintendent. Shaw has filed federal complaints and publicized her opposition to Hernandez, even tearing up a cease-and-desist letter from the Hernandez family during a public school board meeting.
“This is the hill we are willing to die on,” Shaw declared.
Trump’s February executive order banning transgender student-athletes from competing in women’s sports has already triggered lawsuits and pushback in multiple states. The legality of the order is expected to be tested in federal courts, especially as it clashes with state laws and policies in places like California that affirm the rights of transgender youth.
Meanwhile, the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), the governing body for high school sports in the state, announced that it will expand participation opportunities for cisgender girls at this weekend’s championship meet. The CIF has not released data on how many transgender athletes compete in its events, and its assistant commissioner Thom Simmons emphasized that the organization does not track that information.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 3.3% of high school students nationwide identify as transgender. Their participation in school athletics remains one of the most polarizing issues in U.S. politics, with the Trump administration seeking to mobilize its base through aggressive legal and cultural attacks.
But in California, at least, the response from state leaders is clear: the law protects transgender students — and the state is prepared to defend that law in court.
“California stands for inclusion,” Senator Wiener said. “We will not be intimidated by Trump’s unconstitutional threats.”
“THIS IS NOT FAIR, AND TOTALLY DEMEANING TO WOMEN AND GIRLS”
Trump is right and the country agrees with him, even Gavin Newsom.
“His remarks, widely condemned as transphobic”
I don’t think a huge majority see it that way. They see it as Trump protecting women and women’s sports. They see it as democrats acting misogynistic?
“This is the hill we are willing to die on,” Shaw declared.”
No, this is a hill that Democrats are willing to die on.
Just found this, the CIF is basically admitting that girls are being denied a spot in competition because of men competing in women’s sport. So they make this exception but how about the girls that are denied their rightful spot on the podium if they win an event because a man competed and won?
“The CIF values all of our student-athletes, and we will continue to uphold our mission of providing students with the opportunity to belong, connect, and compete while complying with California law and Education Code. With this in mind, the CIF will be implementing a pilot entry process for the 2025 CIF State Track and Field Championships,” the federation said in a statement.”
“Under this pilot entry process, any biological female student-athlete who would have earned the next qualifying mark for one of their Section’s automatic qualifying entries in the CIF State meet, and did not achieve the CIF State at-large mark in the finals at their Section meet, was extended an opportunity to participate in the 2025 CIF State Track and Field Championships. The CIF believes this pilot entry process achieves the participation opportunities we seek to afford our student-athletes.”
“any biological female ” – can see who writes things by the language they use.
Instead of dodging due to semantics, you’re missing the point.
The CIF has admitted that girl athletes were denied a spot in the finals by a trans athlete and has reinstated these girls. How about the girls that are denied a spot on the winner’s podium? How is that any different?
It was never about protecting women’s sports or girl’s safety. It is about denying participation by transgender athletes, and the broader goal of making being transgender illegal. The mob that shows up to the track meets to hurl insults at the teenager and threats at her family will never be happy. The people -including the local woman who posts daily – who relentlessly cyberbullying and doxx transgender people & children, will never be happy, until there are no visible transgender people in the world.
“It was never about protecting women’s sports or girl’s safety”
That’s exactly what it’s all about. You can try to frame it all you want to suit an agenda but when a man takes away a woman’s spot in sports or slams a volleyball off of a woman’s face that’s just wrong.
It’s not semantics. It is an overt language choice which signals to all of us where they are coming from. They did not admit anything – that implies an acknowledgement against their own interests. CIF is basically the California High School equivalent of the NCAA and they largely view the world as you do. The argument that they were “denied” a spot is only valid if you believe that transgender participation is not valid. It’s like arguing that the presence of Black athletes denies white athletes a place on the winners podium. That worked for hundreds of years in this country. If this is really about competition then address that issue – I’ve read enough scientific literature to believe there are ways to accomplish that. But as Sharla writes, I don’t believe this was ever about protecting women’s sports or safety – the same people who are making these arguments are also against Title IX.
“It’s like arguing that the presence of Black athletes denies white athletes a place on the winners podium.”
That’s a terrible analogy.
“can see who writes things by the language they use.”
Yes you can, David Greenwald
David says: “But as Sharla writes, I don’t believe this was ever about protecting women’s sports or safety – the same people who are making these arguments are also against Title IX.”
I don’t believe that’s universally true.
Didn’t Martina Navratilova, for example, express some concerns regarding this issue? (I’m still wondering why someone would start identifying as the opposite sex, and ALSO then feel a “need” to compete against others of that sex.)
All of this sounds like a “First World” type of problem.
Sharla says: “The people -including the local woman who posts daily – who relentlessly cyberbullying and doxx transgender people & children, will never be happy, until there are no visible transgender people in the world.”
My understanding is that the local woman believes that transgenderism is essentially a mental illness, and that institutions such as school districts and health care providers are encouraging/enabling it. (The latter of whom are partly driven by money.) I have not seen the local woman actually bully any person who identifies as transgender. She does challenge those whom she views as enablers.
And she’s experienced verbal and physical assaults, as well as vandalism as a result of her activism. Apparently, from the side of the room that claims to be tolerant.
“ I’m still wondering why someone would start identifying as the opposite sex, and ALSO then feel a “need” to compete against others of that sex”
I think that’s it in a heartbeat. Until people can empathize with what others are going through. It’s hard to understand.
Apparently, it’s also difficult for some to empathize with women who believe that males have some physical advantages, and are also uncomfortable with males in locker rooms, etc. But I don’t attempt to speak for everyone else, unlike what you and Sharla seem to be doing.
But the other part of my comment was actually in regard to the “need” to immediately compete in sports, especially after you start identifying as a sex other than the one you’re born with. I never competed in sports outside of gym class (and the vast majority of those whom attended my schools also did not), but most of us lived to tell the tale. And NONE of the (literally thousands of us) attempted to do so after identifying as a different sex.
Males have physical advantages. One of the things that medical studies show is that with hormones and other treatment those advantages quickly dissipate. That’s why I believe with the proper medical guidance it is possible to have a fair playing field for all involved but that’s not where this debate starts.
“But my comment was actually in regard to the “need” to immediately compete in sports, especially after you start identifying as a sex other than the one you’re born with. ”
As my understanding is that it wouldn’t be an immediate compete, it would be after a certain length of time for hormone treatment.
Also, we are talking about such a small percentage of overall competitors that this has been blown far out of proportion.
I don’t believe that all of the advantages that males have “disappear” with medical interventions. (But medical interventions are actually a far-more serious matter than competing in sports in the first place, which goes back to the other, more significant concerns mentioned by people such as the local activist.)
But I do agree that this issue has been blown out of proportion, and has some other “political baggage” attached to it.
The truth is that most males can’t compete with the males who take sports seriously. I, for example, am not large enough to compete in most professional sports – even if I had the talent. I’ll let someone else box Mike Tyson (even if he was 90 years old).
I might try taking on the women in the WNBA if I was younger, in better shape, a little larger, and more-talented. (In other words, I’m pretty sure they would beat me no matter what, as well.) But even I might still do a little better than an “average” woman my age against the women in the WNBA. (Maybe.)
Of course, I suspect that I might be able to compete against Serena Williams, as well. (At something other than tennis.)
Not sure if this is a “3-comment limit” article, but that’s my third one.
My suggestions would be to take a look at some of the research and my broader suggestion would be for everyone to read the scientific research and use that to craft a fair policy for all.
Please read Tommy Lundberg’s research out of Sweden. Retained advantage associated with Pubertal testosterone is longer and more significant than you are asserting. If the data eventually shows you are correct, fine. But if a future meta analysis leads to scientific consensus that shows otherwise…what then?
Please read Tommy Lundberg’s research out of Sweden. Retained advantage associated with Pubertal testosterone is longer and more significant than you are asserting. If the data eventually shows fairness as you suggest, hooray! But if a future meta analysis leads to scientific consensus that shows otherwise…what then?
This issue will not end and will not change — it may be as or more entrenched and divisive than abortion, especially in California and similar states.
As for Trump vs. Wiener — break out a lawn chair and a huge bowl of popcorn. This is going to be a showdown.
Found it fascinating that Tahoe area school soccer teams are having to change from Nevada to California competition over this issue, because Nevada has taken the opposite position. This puts teams into winter play and crossing Sierra passes in mid-winter to compete. Regardless of the issue itself, that is dangerous. Solution seems impossible. And what do teams do when the champions of both states are declared and they compete with different standards on this issue?
The NIAA rules demand a physical examination and verification of every athlete’s sex. If an opposing team challenges the sex of an athlete, that athlete must submit to an additional examination. This violates California state law, so California schools may not force students to comply with Nevada’s rules. It’s simple. If Nevada wants to include California schools in its sports leagues, California law must prevail for these athletes – not the other way around.
I don’t think Nevada “wants” to include California as such, I believe it was about geographic practicality for the Tahoe area school teams.
Yes, but practically needs to respect the laws of the State and not the rules made by a Sports league that infringes on the right’s of students.