Harriet Hageman (R-WY)
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose an excise tax on certain institutions of higher education that allow male participation in female intercollegiate athletic programs or events.
A Republican bill with 3 Republican cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill proposes an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. It seeks to impose a 10 percent excise tax on certain institutions of higher education. This tax applies if an institution permits male participation in intercollegiate athletic programs or events designated for females. The bill provides specific biological definitions for the terms "male," "female," and "sex." It also includes a requirement that institutions cannot increase tuition or fees to cover these tax liabilities.
Yes
- Scored +4
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill expands federal authority by imposing a new excise tax and requiring new regulations on higher education institutions.
- Scored +2
Would students be better off under this?
The anti-pass-through requirement protects students from tuition increases caused by this tax.
- Scored +2
Does this make college cost less?
The anti-pass-through provision prevents institutions from increasing tuition to cover the tax, which could benefit students.
The opposite
- Scored -8
Would LGBTQ people be better off under this?
The bill explicitly targets and penalizes institutions for allowing participation that includes transgender women in female athletics.
- Scored -7
Does this expand the rights of LGBTQ people?
The bill penalizes institutions for allowing participation that may include transgender women in female athletic categories.
- Scored -3
Does this raise the taxes companies pay?
The bill imposes a new 10 percent excise tax on the aggregate athletic expenditures of certain higher education institutions.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Tuition Price Stability: Under Section 1(a)(c), the "Anti-Pass-Through Requirement" prohibits institutions from increasing tuition or mandatory fees for enrolled students as a result of the tax liability. This could prevent students from facing higher educational costs due to the new tax.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Financial Burden on Institutions: Section 1(a) imposes a tax equal to 10 percent of an institution's aggregate expenditures on all intercollegiate athletic programs if they allow male participation in female athletic events. This could significantly impact the budgets of applicable higher education institutions.
-
Restrictions on Athletic Participation: Section 1(a) targets institutions that permit individuals defined as "male" to participate in programs designated for "females." Based on the definitions in Section 1(b), this would penalize institutions that allow participation by individuals with reproductive systems that produce or utilize sperm.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this expand the rights of LGBTQ people? — The bill penalizes institutions for allowing participation that may include transgender women in female athletic categories.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would students be better off under this? — The anti-pass-through requirement protects students from tuition increases caused by this tax. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — The bill explicitly targets and penalizes institutions for allowing participation that includes transgender women in female athletics.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands federal authority by imposing a new excise tax and requiring new regulations on higher education institutions.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this raise the taxes companies pay? — The bill imposes a new 10 percent excise tax on the aggregate athletic expenditures of certain higher education institutions.
- Education And Technology
- Does this make college cost less? — The anti-pass-through provision prevents institutions from increasing tuition to cover the tax, which could benefit students.
- 9/1/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/27/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/13/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
Sheri BiggsRepublican · South Carolina
Pat HarriganRepublican · North Carolina
Richard McCormickRepublican · Georgia