The International Olympic Committee is examining whether to introduce a single, Games-wide policy on eligibility for women’s events that would apply to transgender athletes and those with differences in sex development, but it has not yet taken a final decision as planning accelerates for the Los Angeles 2028 Olympics. A working group convened by the IOC under its new president, Kirsty Coventry, has been reviewing scientific evidence and existing sports rules, with an update delivered to IOC members last week. An IOC spokesperson said that “no decisions have been taken yet” and further information would be provided in due course, after reports suggested a blanket ban was imminent.
Coventry, the former Zimbabwean swimmer elected IOC president in June, moved early in her tenure to prioritise what the organisation calls protection of the female category, launching a taskforce of medical experts and federations to develop an evidence-based approach. In outlining her agenda during the summer, Coventry said the IOC would pursue a “scientific” process designed to balance inclusion with fairness, signalling a shift from the 2021 framework that largely devolved eligibility decisions to individual international federations. “We will ensure fairness for female athletes,” she said, describing a programme of work to produce sport-specific standards without retroactively altering results from Paris 2024.
The renewed focus follows a turbulent year in Olympic sport. Boxing at Paris 2024 was overshadowed by eligibility controversies, while several international federations tightened rules that affect transgender women and athletes with certain DSD conditions. World Athletics has barred transgender women who have undergone male puberty from its female category and adopted stricter testosterone thresholds for DSD athletes; other bodies, including World Aquatics and World Rugby, have implemented stringent criteria of their own. These measures created a fragmented landscape the IOC now says it wants to address with clearer cross-sport guidance.
Politically, the issue has become more charged in the build-up to LA28. Earlier this year the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee issued changes that effectively align its stance with a White House order signed by President Donald Trump, telling national governing bodies they have an “obligation to comply” with the directive that seeks to exclude transgender women from female sports categories. The USOPC’s update appeared as a revision to its Athlete Safety Policy and was confirmed in a letter to governing bodies, intensifying debate about the host nation’s approach ahead of 2028.
Despite domestic political pressure, US Olympic officials have also indicated they cannot unilaterally establish a Games-wide standard, since the IOC and international federations set eligibility rules and the Olympic Charter guarantees equal access for athletes accepted by their federations. In April, the USOPC’s leadership said it would not draft a separate policy for transgender participation, underscoring that international bodies retain authority over eligibility and that preparations for LA28 would proceed within that framework.
Inside the Olympic movement, candidates for the IOC presidency had already sought to put timelines on a clearer rulebook. Before Coventry’s election, IOC vice-president Juan Antonio Samaranch said in March he wanted a policy in place by early 2026—before the Milano-Cortina Winter Games—to give all stakeholders certainty well ahead of Los Angeles. Samaranch argued that disputes in Paris showed the need for the IOC to provide a universal standard rather than leaving questions entirely to federations. His remarks reflected a broader sentiment among some Olympic leaders that the current patchwork approach is insufficient.
The IOC’s existing framework, introduced in 2021, removed the previous single testosterone threshold and told sports to craft their own rules based on fairness, inclusion and evidence, without presuming advantage. That approach led to divergent policies: some sports adopted categorical exclusions for transgender women who had undergone male puberty; others set time-in-range testosterone criteria; and some retained relatively open pathways subject to medical review. The IOC’s medical and scientific director, Dr Jane Thornton, briefed members last week on initial findings from an ongoing scientific review, which the organisation says will inform any future rules. The IOC reiterated on Monday that the working group is continuing its discussions and that no outcome has been decided.
The stakes for LA28 are significant. The Games are expected to showcase new or returning disciplines with women’s competitions—among them flag football and surfing—alongside established sports like athletics, swimming and cycling that already apply different eligibility standards. The host city contract obliges organisers to ensure access for all qualified athletes, yet any IOC-level policy change would need to mesh with U.S. federal directives and the USOPC’s stance, as well as with international federation rulebooks and anti-discrimination laws. USOPC officials have said they are working to resolve potential conflicts, including visa access, while leaving eligibility to international federations.
Athlete advocates and women’s sports groups remain sharply divided. Supporters of strict exclusion for transgender women argue that advantages linked to male puberty persist despite hormone suppression and that safety and fairness require categorical rules. Those who favour inclusion counter that blanket bans are discriminatory, that evidence varies by sport and performance attribute, and that robust safeguards can be crafted without excluding everyone. While the IOC has not endorsed either end of that spectrum, Coventry has signalled a desire to “clarify and enforce” standards through a science-led process, with sport-specific criteria expected to feature in whatever emerges.
In the United States, the federal executive order has already had ripple effects beyond Olympic pathways. According to statements published when the USOPC revised its policy, the committee referenced the order—titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports”—and the Ted Stevens Olympic & Amateur Sports Act, telling national bodies the change was necessary to ensure a fair environment for women. The Associated Press reported that Olympic officials also warned governing bodies about risks to funding if they did not comply. Civil rights groups criticised the measures as likely to intensify political polarisation and harm young transgender athletes, while legal challenges continue in several states over similar restrictions.
Globally, the IOC’s move will be watched closely by federations that have already rewritten rules since 2022. World Aquatics now limits eligibility for transgender women to those who completed transition prior to the onset of male puberty, with an “open category” piloted but not widely adopted; World Rugby’s elite women’s category excludes transgender women citing safety concerns; cycling has tightened its hormone criteria. World Athletics’ policy is among the most restrictive and has been defended publicly by its president, Sebastian Coe, who argued last year that if sports fail to protect the women’s category “you really will lose female sport”. Any IOC-level policy will need to navigate this spectrum to remain credible across the programme.
The timing of any decision remains uncertain. Reports circulating this week suggested a new IOC policy might be announced early next year, potentially at a session in Milan ahead of the Winter Games. The IOC’s line on Monday was that its scientific review is ongoing, that members had been updated, and that the working group would continue to consult with federations. Coventry has previously said she wants a solution that gives clarity to athletes years before LA28 without revisiting results from past competitions, and that the process should be anchored in scientific evidence and competitive fairness rather than political pressure.
The Paris cycle underscored how quickly disputes can engulf an event. Two boxing cases—distinct from transgender participation but relating to sex-verification and eligibility—prompted noisy debate that spilled far beyond the ring. For the IOC, those scenes were a reminder that uncertainty creates flashpoints; for the federations, they highlighted the importance of rule clarity and consistent enforcement. The working group’s scientific review is expected to examine performance differentials by discipline, safety considerations in contact sports, and the practicalities of testing and compliance timelines, all of which vary widely between endurance, strength-power and skill-dominant events.
Whatever emerges, the IOC will have to reconcile multiple legal and ethical considerations. The Olympic Charter commits the movement to oppose discrimination while upholding the integrity of competition. Anti-doping laboratories are not designed to police sex characteristics, raising operational questions about who conducts testing and how appeals are handled. Privacy rights and the risk of intrusive verification procedures have been raised by athletes’ groups and medical ethicists, while women’s sports advocates stress that clear categories are essential to participation and public confidence. Coventry’s effort to centralise guidance suggests the IOC believes a coordinated standard is preferable to today’s patchwork, but any change will rely on buy-in from federations that guard their autonomy.
For now, the key facts are that the IOC has not approved a blanket ban for LA28 and that its working group continues to study the issue. The United States, as host nation, has moved to align Olympic pathways with a federal order restricting transgender women’s participation, telling domestic governing bodies to comply; that posture adds urgency to the IOC’s timeline because it raises the possibility of conflicting standards between the world governing body and the host’s national structures. Samaranch’s call for a rule by early 2026, and Coventry’s stated ambition to deliver science-based policy with broad consensus, indicate that a decision point is approaching. But unless and until the IOC publishes a formal rule, athletes’ eligibility will remain governed by the individual policies of their international federations and any national rules that apply, a status quo the IOC has now signalled it wants to replace with clearer guidance well before Los Angeles.