| Photo by Alexander Grey on Unsplash
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has revised its immigration policy to restrict visa eligibility for transgender women seeking to compete in women’s sports in the U.S. This aligns with Executive Order 14201, titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports”, signed by President Donald Trump earlier this year.
The visa categories affected by this policy are O-!A (extraordinary ability), EB-1 and EB-2 (employment-based green cards), and national interest waivers (NIWs).
With the new criteria, USCIS will treat past competition against women by male athletes as a negative factor, transgender women athletes will not be considered to benefit the U.S. substantially, and USCIS will not waive labor certification for male athletes seeking to compete in women’s sports.
The three-fold policy rationale of this policy is to “affirmatively protect all-female athletic opportunities, to prevent ‘biological male athletes’ from leveraging gender identity to gain competitive advantage, and to uphold ‘safety, fairness, respect, and truth’ in women’s sports.”
“Men do not belong in women’s sports. USCIS is closing the loophole for foreign male athletes whose only chance at winning elite sports is to change their gender identity and leverage their biological advantages against women,” said USCIS Spokesperson Matthew Tragesser. “It’s a matter of safety, fairness, respect, and truth that only female athletes receive a visa to come to the U.S. to participate in women’s sports. The Trump Administration is standing up for the silent majority who’ve long been victims of leftist policies that defy common sense.”
The policy is timed ahead of the 2026 LA Olympics, where eligibility and fairness in international competition are under scrutiny.
Supporters claim it restores fairness and protects cisgender women athletes from “biological disadvantage.”
The policy guidance is effective immediately and applies to benefit requests pending or filed on or after the publication date. It is controlling and supersedes any related prior guidance. Critics argue it targets a small, marginalized group and may violate international human rights norms.
