NEWNow you can listen to Pak Gazette articles!
President Donald Trump spoke out about US Supreme Court cases on trans athletes in women’s sports, criticizing the judge who he felt appeared to be “fighting” to keep “men playing women’s sports.”
Trump told reporters at a White House news conference on Tuesday that he believes judges who appeared to side with the trans athlete plaintiffs should “lose a lot of credibility.”
“Great 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. But I think anyone who rules that way should lose a lot of credibility. But we banned men from playing in women’s sports,” Trump said.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON PakGazette.Com
Athletes involved in the case speak in front of the U.S. Supreme Court after the justices heard arguments in challenges to state bans on transgender athletes in women’s sports on January 13, 2026, in Washington, DC. (Oliver Contreras/AFP)
“All you have to do is look at the records, look at the weightlifting records, look at the swimming records, look at athletics. This is not fair. It’s very degrading to women.”
Trump previously criticized judges and former President Joe Biden’s administration for their stance on supporting trans athletes in women’s sports.
“The last administration, they were either clueless or really bad, but basically clueless. But they did have a concept. I mean, they’re still trying to sell the idea of men playing women’s sports. You saw that in the Supreme Court. I mean, some of those justices were fighting for them, too,” Trump said. “They were fighting for them. But you saw the other day in the Supreme Court that men playing women’s sports doesn’t work.”
The two cases that came before the Supreme Court last week focused on the issue of states’ rights to pass laws banning biological males from women’s and girls’ sports. Idaho and West Virginia were sued by trans athletes in those states, who successfully blocked state laws to protect women’s sports. Now, the Supreme Court will review both cases and issue a possible landmark ruling.
Judges Kentaji Brown-Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor asked questions and statements during the hearing that could suggest they will rule in favor of the trans athlete plaintiffs.
During the opening statements of the hearing, Brown-Jackson pressured Idaho Attorney General Alan Hurst on state law aimed at protecting girls’ and women’s sports.
“I guess I have a hard time understanding how you can say that this law doesn’t classify based on transgender status,” Jackson told Hurst. “The law expressly aims to ensure that transgender women cannot play on women’s sports teams. So why isn’t it a classification based on transgender status?”
Justice Clarence Thomas was seen hunched in his seat with his hand covering his face during this Brown-Jackson question, as witnessed by Pak Gazette Digital in the courtroom. There were other moments during the hearing when Thomas was seen in the same pose.
INSIDE THE SCOTUS HEARING WILL BE A INVISION POINT IN THE CULTURAL WAR OVER TRANS ATHLETES IN WOMEN’S SPORTS
Hurst responded to Jackson, arguing that Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act depended on a student-athlete’s sex, not their transgender status.
Jackson continued to press Hurst, asking, “But you treat transgender women differently than cis women, don’t you?”
In another case, Jackson asked West Virginia Attorney General Michael Williams asks similar questions about his state’s Saving Women’s Sports Act.
“You have a general classification: everyone has to play on the team that is the same sex they were at birth, but then you have a definition of gender identity that operates within that, which means a distinction, which means that for cisgender girls, they can play according to their gender identity. For transgender girls, they can’t,” Jackson said.
Meanwhile, Sotomayor cited approximately 2.8 million people in the United States who identify as transgender and said their rights must be respected even if they represent a small percentage of the population.
“What percentage is enough?” -Sotomayor asked. “There are 2.8 million transgender people in the United States. That’s a terrifyingly large number… What makes an underclass meaningful to you? Is it one percent? Five percent? Thirty percent? Fifteen percent?”
“Numbers do not speak about human beings.”
If recent decisions regarding trans rights are any indication, a favorable rule for West Virginia and Idaho is still likely.
In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision on June 18, 2025, upheld Tennessee’s ban on certain gender-affirming health care for minors. All the justices voted against party lines: the six conservative justices voted to uphold the ban and the three liberal justices voted against it.
But in an August 2024 decision on whether the former president joe bidenWhether the administration should be granted an emergency request to enforce parts of a new rule that includes nondiscrimination protections for transgender students under Title IX, the court voted only 5-4 to strike down the request.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented and agreed with the three liberal justices and the Biden administration that the lower courts’ rulings were “overbroad.”
The request would have biological men allowed in women’s bathrooms, locker rooms and bedrooms in 10 states where there are state and local rules to prevent it.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE Pak Gazette APP
Protesters gather outside the Supreme Court as it hears arguments over state laws banning transgender girls and women from playing on school sports teams, Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/José Luis Magaña)
A decision in this case is expected no later than June.
