The recent Republican initiatives in Washington were framed as a solution to the chaos surrounding college athletics, particularly as it relates to the regulation of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL). The implications of these changes were vast, aiming to stabilize what has been likened to a “Wild West” environment where college athletes had seen a surge in their personal branding opportunities. However, as we delve deeper into the political landscape surrounding these measures, it’s evident that the picture isn’t quite as clear-cut as it may seem.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the newly appointed chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, has been vocal about his worries. He has cautioned that the increasing “uncertainty” within intercollegiate athletics could threaten the system’s very foundation. These concerns aren’t his alone; they resonate with other Republican figures, including Representative Burgess Owens (R-Utah), who, as a former University of Miami football player and now the lead of the House higher education subcommittee, has a vested interest in the well-being of college sports. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), another prominent figure, brings a unique perspective as a former college football coach himself.
It’s interesting to note that Republicans have historically been critical of the NCAA. Yet, in this current environment, the party appears to be leaning towards the NCAA’s call for stability, reflecting a shift in rhetoric that aligns them more closely with traditional college sports interests. Just recently, in response to President Donald Trump’s executive action that prohibits transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports, NCAA president Charlie Baker admired the initiative for establishing a “clear, national standard.”
Yet, one must consider the broader context. While this executive order may have added some clarity, it comes packaged with a slew of additional educational policy measures that introduce a fresh wave of unpredictability into a college sports landscape already seething with legal and financial turbulence. Among these new measures is Trump’s January 21 executive order, which cuts federal funding to any institution promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The stakes are further raised by significant reductions to NIH research funding—essential lifelines for many educational institutions—and the rescinding of Title IX guidance related to NIL, among other actions. Trump’s proposals are striking into the very fabric of the Department of Education, with an ambition, some say, to dismantle it entirely.
As precedents unfold, we can look forward to the Senate’s upcoming confirmation of Linda McMahon as Secretary of Education, a role the president has suggested will be scrutinized based on its willingness to fulfill this ambitious, if controversial, agenda. Recently, Trump referred to the Department of Education as a “massive con job,” calling for its immediate closure—a sentiment that has left many education and sports administrators both curious and nervous about the implications of such an outcome.
The reality of how these disruptive initiatives impact college sports remains fuzzy. Legal walls are currently blocking some of Trump’s funding freezes tied to NIH and DEI pending ongoing lawsuits. Meanwhile, his aspirations to dismantle the Department of Education are expected to face even greater legal hurdles. Furthermore, Trump has cleverly tied his calls to terminate the $268 billion department with leveraging its influence to achieve his political agenda.
In recent news, the acting assistant for civil rights at the department initiated investigations into universities like the University of Pennsylvania and San Jose State for allowing transgender athletes to compete on women’s teams. The Department of Education plays a crucial role in college athletics, particularly through overseeing financial aid and enforcing Title IX—an essential civil rights law that was enacted in 1972. Title IX mandates that federally funded schools provide equal opportunities and resources for male and female athletes proportionate to their student body demographics.
After Title IX was established, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) was created to ensure compliance with gender equity. This was further bolstered in 1994 by the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, which requires schools to disclose data regarding their athletics programs. Yet critics argue that Trump’s agenda not only threatens the integrity of higher education but also contradicts the Republican ethos of supporting women in sports. As Representative Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) stated, by seeking to dismantle the Department of Education, the administration risks erasing hard-fought opportunities for women, leaving them more vulnerable to risks like stalking and harassment.
On the flip side, some argue that the OCR’s effectiveness has been questionable. A Government Accountability Office report pointed to systemic issues in the OCR’s handling of gender-equity complaints—not the efficiency one would hope for in safeguarding rights under Title IX. Nancy Hogshead-Makar, a former Olympic swimmer and women’s sports advocate, has shared her frustration, noting that despite filing 101 Title IX complaints with the OCR between 2023 and 2024, not one led to actionable change. Even as she supported Trump’s orders for transgender athletes, she hoped that the new administration’s focus on women’s sports would also translate to a renewed commitment to enforcing Title IX.
Despite this, there remain fears that transferring oversight of Title IX to another federal agency could, at its core, strip away the vital support necessary for its implementation. Donna Lopiano, a former college athletics administrator, insists that while OCR may have its flaws, it has been essential for providing guidance and education on Title IX. As she points out, even if enforcement were to move to the Department of Justice, that department is not structured with the educational focus needed to effectively support Title IX.
The significance of the Department of Education extends beyond compliance—it’s about ensuring access and equity for student-athletes, many of whom rely on federal aid. Legal expert Joseph LaPaolombara, with a solid background in NCAA compliance, reiterated that many athletes operate under misconceptions regarding their scholarships. Only 59% of Division I athletes actually receive even some form of athletic aid, and many depend on federal assistance. He underscored that a considerable portion of scholarship athletes also navigate need-based financial aid systems, with a significant percentage qualifying for Pell Grants.
“Collegiate athletics is just a slice of the whole system,” LaPaolombara says, emphasizing the intertwined nature of finances and student support. As educational institutions brace for the impact of Trump’s executive policies, many administrators—including athletic directors—are feeling the strain.
Moreover, the directive issued by Trump demanding that institutions eliminate DEI programs by April 21 raises concerns about the moral fabric of collegiate athletics, often perceived as champions of inclusion. We venture into a ‘new Wild West’ of sports governance, as colleges may feel encouraged to take risks in response to the changing political climate.
As this complex web of federal policies continues to evolve, the impact on college athletics will unfold with significant implications. And as we navigate this journey, staying informed and adaptable will be chief among the needs of athletes, administrators, and supporters striving for a fair sports landscape. The stakes have never been higher, and how these policies play out will determine the future of not just college athletics but the very principles of equity and access within our education system.
