In a striking political shift, key Democratic leaders have increasingly moved toward deferring decisions about transgender athletes in women’s sports to local communities rather than advocating for broader federal protections. The move has left many transgender athletes and their allies questioning whether their once-reliable support from the Democratic Party is eroding.
Last week, Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) was among 45 Democrats who voted against the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, which failed to pass the 60-vote threshold. When pressed about the issue, Kim refrained from taking a definitive stance on whether transgender athletes should be allowed to compete in women’s sports. Instead, he argued that decisions should be made at the community level.
“We want to make sure that these decisions are made by the communities, by the schools, and others that are the ones closest to us,” Kim said during an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union. He emphasized that transgender athletes make up a very small percentage of competitors and suggested that the federal government should not impose a top-down policy on the matter.
Kim also accused Republicans of playing “politics” with the issue, arguing that it is disingenuous for conservatives to claim safety concerns over transgender athletes while remaining largely silent on the epidemic of school shootings.
His comments align with those of other prominent Democrats, including Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), who has characterized the debate over transgender athletes in women’s sports as a political distraction designed to “see sparks fly.” Slotkin, too, has endorsed a local-control approach, arguing that school districts and communities should determine their own policies.
Democrats Pivoting Away from National Protections
This shift comes at a time when the Democratic Party is reassessing its priorities in the wake of the 2024 election, which returned Donald Trump to the White House and gave Republicans control of Congress. Some party leaders, including Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), have suggested that Democrats should focus less on cultural debates and more on economic issues that resonate with a broad base of voters.
“I want all young people to have the experience of playing in sports,” Schiff said on ABC’s This Week. “And I want those sports to be fair. I want those sports to be safe, and I have confidence that local schools and local communities can make those decisions without the federal government making them for them.”
Schiff’s comments echo those of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who sparked controversy within his party after declaring that it is “deeply unfair” for transgender women to compete in women’s sports. Newsom’s remarks, made during an appearance on conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s podcast, have drawn backlash from progressive California Democrats, who said they were “sickened” by his stance.
“I think it’s an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that,” Newsom told Kirk. “It is an issue of fairness—it’s deeply unfair.”
For many in the transgender community, this marks a stark departure from the Democratic Party’s previous messaging, which strongly opposed Republican-led efforts to ban transgender athletes from participating in women’s sports.
Parallels to the Abortion Debate
The Democratic argument for local control on transgender sports bears a striking resemblance to the party’s response to abortion restrictions. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, many Democrats initially pointed to state and local governments as the battleground for reproductive rights. However, this approach has resulted in a patchwork of laws that have severely restricted abortion access in conservative states, leaving millions of people without essential healthcare options.
A similar outcome could be unfolding for transgender athletes. By shifting the issue to local decision-making, Democrats may be inadvertently opening the door for a flood of restrictive policies in conservative states and school districts. This would effectively strip transgender athletes of the protections they previously relied on at the federal level.
The Political Risks of Abandoning Transgender Athletes
As Democrats reposition their messaging in an effort to regain electoral ground, transgender rights activists fear they may become collateral damage in a broader political strategy. The push for local control on transgender sports comes at a time when Republican-led states are already advancing aggressive policies targeting LGBTQ+ individuals, including bans on gender-affirming care for minors and restrictions on bathroom access.
Moreover, the emphasis on economic issues over cultural matters could leave transgender rights on the back burner. Schiff himself suggested that Democrats would be making a mistake by allowing discussions about transgender athletes to dominate the national conversation when economic concerns remain top of mind for voters.
“We need to keep the focus on what matters most to the American people, and that is the economy,” Schiff said. “To the degree that we get away from focusing on those things, I think it’s a mistake.”
For transgender athletes, however, this shift is deeply personal. Without clear federal protections, their ability to compete in sports—and in some cases, their very existence in public life—could be increasingly determined by the political leanings of their local communities.
The Bottom Line
The Democratic Party’s decision to pivot to local decision-making on transgender sports should serve as a cautionary tale for those in the transgender community and their allies. The recent history of abortion rights demonstrates how a lack of federal protections can lead to sweeping restrictions at the state level, disproportionately harming marginalized groups.
As this issue continues to evolve, transgender individuals and their supporters must remain vigilant. While some Democrats may be shifting their focus away from cultural debates, the lives and rights of transgender athletes hang in the balance. Without strong national advocacy, the push for “local control” may ultimately leave them with fewer protections than ever before.
