What happened
The International Olympic Committee yesterday announced that transgender women athletes will be barred from competing in women’s events starting with the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles. The announcement ends “months of speculation” over how the governing body would address one of the “most contentious issues facing global sports,” The New York Times said. It was the IOC’s “most consequential” decision since Kirsty Coventry (pictured above) took over as the organization’s first woman president last June. 

Who said what
“Eligibility for any female category event” at any IOC event is “now limited to biological females,” the IOC said in a statement. Any athlete who wants to compete in a women’s category must take a mandatory one-time gene test to determine if they have a Y chromosome. “We know that this topic is sensitive,” Coventry said. But the “science” conducted by the IOC’s “medical experts” shows that “biological males” have inherent physical advantages, and “at the Olympic Games, even the smallest margins can be the difference between victory and defeat.” 

Critics warned that the new policy “extends beyond transgender athletes and could subject all women competitors to invasive scrutiny,” Advocate said. The “potential” for “increased ‘gender policing’ of all female athletes” is “unwelcome,” said Outsports. The French Olympic Committee said the genetic tests “raise major ethical and scientific concerns” and also “practical difficulties,” since French “bioethics laws and the civil code” prohibit their use.

What next?
The IOC’s policy is “widely expected to be adopted by international sports federations and become a universal rule for competitors in female elite sports,” Reuters said. But it also “can — and likely will — be challenged at the Court of Arbitration for Sport,” The Associated Press said. Any challenge would examine the “science underpinning IOC research which was not published” yesterday.

What happened
A federal judge in California yesterday temporarily blocked the Pentagon from labeling Anthropic a “supply chain risk,” a designation that effectively blacklisted the AI company from U.S. government contracts. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin said the “broad punitive measures” imposed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (pictured above) likely violated Anthropic’s due process and free speech rights. 

Who said what
The ruling was a “clear victory” for Anthropic in its “bitter power struggle with the Defense Department over the use of its Claude system by the military,” The Washington Post said. During negotiations for a $200 million contract, Anthropic wanted to keep safeguards against using its AI on autonomous weapons and surveilling Americans, and the Pentagon rejected any limits imposed by a private contractor. When the dispute became public, Hegseth blacklisted Anthropic using an “obscure government-procurement statute aimed at protecting military systems from foreign sabotage,” Reuters said. 

“Nothing in the governing statute supports the Orwellian notion that an American company may be branded a potential adversary and saboteur of the U.S. for expressing disagreement with the government,” Lin wrote in her 43-page ruling. If the Pentagon had real national security concerns, it “could just stop using Claude.”

What next?
Lin paused her ruling for seven days to give the Pentagon a chance to appeal. The outcome of the case and a similar challenge pending in Washington, D.C., have broad “implications for AI use in war,” The New York Times said. While the Trump administration has said it would “transition away” from Anthropic’s AI, the Post said, Claude is “deeply embedded in the military’s systems” and the Pentagon “has been continuing to use it in support of its bombing campaign in Iran.”