President Donald Trump didn’t mince words on January 20, 2026, criticizing U.S. Supreme Court justices for their questioning during a recent hearing on state bans against transgender athletes in women’s sports.
Speaking at a White House press conference, Trump suggested that any justice who sides with allowing biological males to compete in female categories would “lose a lot of credibility,” emphasizing the unfairness to women athletes.
Trump Blasts Supreme Court Justices Over Trans Athlete Case: ‘Should Lose a Lot of Credibility’ If They Rule Against Women’s Sports Bans
The comments come amid ongoing debates over transgender rights in sports, with the high court reviewing challenges to laws in Idaho and West Virginia. Trump’s remarks highlight his administration’s stance on protecting women’s sports, a key issue in the culture wars.
Supreme Court Hearing: Key Arguments and Justice Reactions
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on January 13, 2026, in two consolidated cases: one challenging Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act and the other West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act. These laws aim to restrict transgender women (biological males) from participating in women’s and girls’ athletic competitions.
Lower courts had blocked both state bans, prompting appeals that reached the nation’s highest court. During the hearing:
- Liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor pressed state solicitors on whether the laws discriminate based on transgender status.
- Justice Brown Jackson questioned Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst: “I guess I’m struggling to understand how you can say that this law doesn’t classify on the basis of transgender status. The law expressly aims to ensure that transgender women can’t play on women’s sports teams. So why is that not a classification on the basis of transgender status?” She added, “But it treats transgender women different than ciswomen, doesn’t it?”
- Addressing West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams, Brown Jackson noted: “You have the overarching classification — everybody has to play on the team that is the same as their sex at birth — but then you have a gender-identity definition that is operating within that, meaning a distinction, meaning that for cisgender girls, they can play consistent with their gender identity. For transgender girls, they can’t.”
- Justice Sotomayor highlighted the human element: “What’s percentage enough? There are 2.8 million transgender people in the United States. That’s an awfully big figure. … What makes a subclass meaningful to you? Is it one percent? Five percent? Thirty percent? Fifteen percent? The numbers don’t talk about the human beings.”
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas was observed slouching with his hand over his face during Brown Jackson’s line of questioning, signaling potential frustration. A ruling is expected by June 2026 at the latest.
Trump’s Fiery Response: Defending Women’s Sports
Trump seized on the justices’ comments to reiterate his opposition to transgender participation in women’s sports. “Big Supreme Court case. I mean, I can’t believe it. Some of the justices were fighting hard for men to be able to play in women’s sports. A couple of them, I can’t imagine it. But I think anybody that rules that way should lose a lot of credibility,” he stated.
He pointed to athletic disparities: “All you have to do is look at the records, look at weightlifting records, look at swimming records, look at track and field. This is not fair. It’s very demeaning to women.”
Trump also took aim at the previous Biden administration: “The past administration, they had no clue or they were really bad, but they basically had no clue. But they did have, a concept. I mean, they’re still trying to sell the idea of men playing in women’s sports. You saw that in the Supreme Court. I mean, some of those justices were fighting for them, too. They were fighting for them. But you saw that just the other day in the Supreme Court, men playing in women’s sport doesn’t work.”
Under his administration, Trump noted, “we banned men from playing in women’s sports,” aligning with his support for the state laws in question.
Background: The Cases and Broader Context
The Idaho case centers on a law requiring athletes to compete based on biological sex, not transgender status. West Virginia’s statute mandates participation on teams matching sex assigned at birth, with distinctions for gender identity.
These challenges follow recent Supreme Court decisions on transgender issues:
- In June 2025, a 6-3 ruling in United States v. Skrmetti upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, with votes split along ideological lines.
- In August 2024, a 5-4 decision rejected the Biden administration’s emergency request to enforce Title IX protections for transgender students in 10 states, allowing restrictions on biological males in certain facilities. Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the liberal dissent.
Outside the court, female athletes rallied post-hearing, while protesters demonstrated during arguments, underscoring the divisive nature of the debate.
Implications for Women’s Sports and Transgender Rights
This Supreme Court case could set a precedent on states’ authority to regulate transgender participation in athletics, impacting Title IX interpretations and women’s sports nationwide. Advocates for the bans argue they ensure fairness and safety, citing physical advantages in biological males. Opponents view them as discriminatory, emphasizing inclusion and transgender rights.
Trump’s intervention amplifies the political stakes, potentially influencing public opinion and future policy. As the 2026 midterms approach, the issue remains a flashpoint in cultural and legal battles.
For more on the hearing, including video of Trump’s comments, visit Fox News coverage. The outcome could reshape transgender athlete policies, with ripple effects for schools, colleges, and professional sports.
For More Sports And Politics Content:
At the intersection of the playing field and the corridors of power, the stakes are always higher than they appear. Here, touchdowns and treaties, contracts and caucuses, victories and vendettas all collide. This is where sports stop being just games — and politics stop pretending to be civil. Welcome to Sports & Politics.
