The intersection of politics and sports took another sharp turn when the Trump administration issued a sweeping directive through Executive Order 14168, removing the terms “female,” gender,” “pregnant” and “LGBTQ+” from all federal research grants.
Although framed under the guise of “neutrality” and the elimination of “ideological bias,” this move, issued on (date here), has sparked intense criticism from the athletic and academic communities, particularly those engaged in women’s sports. The implications are far-reaching, not only in academic research but also in athlete development, injury prevention and health equity. By targeting language central to the study of sex-based differences, the administration has not only disrupted existing research but created a chilling effect that could severely undermine the future of evidence-based support for women in sports.
This fallout has been immediate. Universities and research institutions are now scrambling to reword grant applications or risk the loss of federal funding. In several high-profile cases, grants dedicated to the study of injury patterns unique to female athletes — such as ACL tears, which occur two to six times more frequently in women than in men — have been revoked. Researchers at Stanford and the University of North Carolina confirmed that proposals exploring the menstrual cycle’s impact on athletic performance were pulled for review, with some terminated outright.
These studies, already vastly underrepresented in sports science, provide foundational data that inform everything from training schedules to recovery protocols. Their loss means fewer tools for coaches, trainers and athletes to mitigate risk and enhance performance. It’s a significant step backward in a field already marked by gender imbalance. In 2023, just eight per cent of all sports science research focused exclusively on women, according to a report by the British Journal of Sports Medicine. With this new order, even that sliver of progress is under severe threat.
The research purge has prompted international concern. The United States was, until now, a leader in sex-differentiated sports science. Countries like Australia and the United Kingdom, both of which have recently launched multi-million-dollar initiatives to support female athletes, have condemned the U.S. directive. In March, the Global Alliance for Female Athletes — a coalition of sports researchers and policy advocates from over 10 countries — issued a joint statement decrying the decision as a direct assault on the advancement of a safe, equitable and high-performing athletic environment for women.
Beyond injury prevention, the loss of sex-specific research also threatens progress in understanding female specific performance metrics, energy availability and mental health support. Female bodies are not simply smaller versions of male bodies; they respond differently to training, nutrition and recovery. Removing the word “female” from grant language doesn’t make these differences disappear — it makes them invisible to the common eye.
Amid this controversy, Nike released one of the most pointed advertisements in its history. Debuting during the 2025 Super Bowl, the ad, titled “So Win,” is a powerful rebuttal to the political climate. Featuring a sequence of elite female athletes, the commercial intercuts archival footage of their setbacks and recoveries and reflects on the disparities of women athletes, both systemically and in media coverage. At its climax, the ad fixates on how women are told they can’t be a certain way, but should strive for success anyway: “Whatever you do, you can’t win… So win!”
Although Nike has faced criticism in the past for its treatment of women, including backlash over its maternity policies, this campaign marks a return to its activist marketing roots. The ad is bold, unapologetic and aimed squarely at policies threatening to silence women’s stories.
The ad struck a cultural nerve with the masses, as social media exploded with praise from athletes and advocates. The truth is that women’s sports have always been political, because women have always had to fight for legitimacy in spaces built without them in mind.
The Trump administration’s decision is not about semantics. It compromises not only scientific integrity but athlete safety. For collegiate programs, where Title IX compliance is already under scrutiny, this creates further disparity. Athletic departments rely on federally funded research to develop training protocols, manage athlete health and allocate resources. Without clarity on needs specific to female bodies, these systems risk becoming dangerously misaligned with reality.
What’s especially troubling is that this decision comes amid a historic surge in interest and investment in women’s sports. The WNBA just added its 13th franchise, NCAA women’s basketball broke viewership records during March Madness and sponsorship deals for women’s league athletes are climbing. Yet, while the commercial appeal of women’s sports grows, the infrastructure to support them scientifically is being dismantled. Women’s empowerment is impossible if you strip away the research that sustains it.