The showdown between state-level activism and federal law escalated this week as the Trump administration made a bold move against California’s controversial transgender sports policy. At the heart of the clash: AB Hernandez, a biologically male high school athlete who identifies as female and competed — and won — in girls’ events at the state track and field championships. Now, California’s public schools are staring down a hard deadline, with federal funding hanging in the balance.
The California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), the governing body for high school athletics in the state, has long held that gender identity should determine athletic participation. Bylaw 300.D mandates that boys who identify as girls must be allowed to compete in the girls’ division — a rule that has sparked widespread outrage among parents, athletes, and now, federal officials.
To attempt damage control, CIF temporarily altered its policy for this meet through a “pilot program,” naming both biological girls and AB Hernandez as co-champions. But the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division isn’t buying it.
🚨BREAKING: President Trump is imposing large scale fines on California for allowing men to compete in women’s sports.
FAFO. pic.twitter.com/TP8ooNyZY8
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) June 3, 2025
Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, made it clear that tweaks and titles won’t erase what she argues is a constitutional violation. In a letter issued Monday to California public school districts (and cc’d to CIF), Dhillon stated unequivocally: Complying with Bylaw 300.D violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
“Scientific evidence shows that upsetting the historical status quo and forcing girls to compete against males would deprive them of athletic opportunities and benefits because of their sex,” the letter reads. “You cannot implement a policy allowing males to compete alongside girls.”
The letter demands that all affected districts certify in writing by 5:00 PM ET on June 9, 2025, that they will not implement CIF’s bylaw. Failure to comply, Dhillon warns, will trigger legal liability and possible loss of federal education funds.
In a deft legal maneuver, the DOJ under Trump is sidestepping the Biden administration’s expanded interpretation of Title IX, which controversially redefines “sex” to include gender identity. Instead, Dhillon is leveraging the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, framing the issue as a constitutional violation — and bypassing the ideological deadlock over federal civil rights law.
This strategy not only strengthens the administration’s position in court but also places school districts in a precarious position: comply with the state and risk federal funding, or reject the state’s policy and face Sacramento’s wrath.
The clock is now ticking. California school districts are being forced to choose between adherence to state ideology and compliance with federal law and the Constitution. Resistance is expected, and legal battles are almost guaranteed. Yet the consequences are real — and significant.
For Governor Gavin Newsom, the implications are politically explosive. Should he throw his weight behind CIF and risk alienating moderate voters ahead of a potential presidential bid? Or back down, potentially weakening his standing with progressives?
