Trump’s Executive Order on College Sports Rings Hollow Amid His Own Policy Contradictions
By all appearances, President Donald Trump’s executive order (EO) on college athletics is meant to be a forceful political intervention into what has become one of the most fraught and fast-evolving issues in American sports. Framed as a way to “save” college sports, the order calls for preserving scholarships, protecting non-revenue and Olympic sports, limiting third-party pay-for-play NIL deals, and defining athletes as non-employees - all in the name of maintaining the integrity of a uniquely American institution.
But read past the patriotic buzzwords and rhetorical posturing, and the hypocrisy begins to stack up quickly.
What the EO Claims to Do
At a high level, Trump’s EO outlines several key priorities:
Preserve and expand athletic scholarships and non-revenue sports.
Prohibit pay-for-play deals by third parties (i.e., NIL collectives), while still allowing legitimate endorsements.
Instruct the Department of Labor and NLRB to define student-athletes not as employees.
Direct the DOJ and FTC to protect student-athletes’ rights and reduce “endless” litigation.
Consult with the Olympic and Paralympic organizations to safeguard college sports as a developmental pipeline.
It’s a laundry list of talking points that, on paper, sound like an attempt to stabilize the chaos that’s followed the NCAA’s collapse as a governing force. Make no mistake, the chaos is real. Lawsuits have shredded amateurism, state NIL laws are contradictory, and there is genuine concern over the long-term viability of Olympic and women’s sports amid escalating football and basketball spending.
But this EO does little to actually address the root causes of these issues. Worse, it reads like an attempt to fix problems that Trump’s own administration helped create.
The Hypocrisy Is Blinding
If Trump truly wants to preserve Title IX protections, one has to ask: Why did his own administration’s Department of Education remove Title IX consideration from the House v. NCAA settlement structure? In one of the most consequential legal agreements in college sports history, the Department of Education - under Trump - helped create a framework where Title IX wasn’t even a factor in determining how shared revenues would be distributed. That means schools aren’t required to proportionally split these new benefits between men’s and women’s sports, raising significant equity questions.
And while the EO now criticizes schools for spending “$35 to $40 million” on football rosters, it was Trump’s DOJ that earlier argued those very schools should be allowed to spend more than the proposed House settlement cap. That argument came in a formal statement during the settlement approval process, essentially defending the right of institutions to spend unlimited amounts on athlete compensation - a position that directly undermines Trump’s current warning about “pay-for-play bidding wars” destabilizing college sports.
The EO rails against lawsuits that have “torn down the rules of college sports,” yet the Trump-era federal government explicitly supported the conditions that led to those lawsuits being won in court.
A Political Move, Not a Policy Solution
Let’s be clear: this EO doesn’t carry much legal weight. Executive orders don’t override existing law, and the real policy levers to “restore order”, like a federal NIL standard or antitrust exemption, can only come from Congress.
So why issue the EO at all?
It seems clear that this move is more about positioning the Trump administration politically than making any material change to the college sports landscape. College athletics remain an emotionally charged cultural touchstone, and they make for easy headline grabs. Promising to “save women’s sports” or “end pay-for-play” polls well with certain voter segments, especially when framed as opposition to perceived chaos or overreach from progressive causes.
But none of this addresses the underlying tension: College sports are undergoing a real and necessary transformation, particularly in high-revenue programs. Athletes generate billions in value and are finally gaining access to a small fraction of it. If we’re going to protect Olympic sports and maintain competitive equity, that requires honest, complex policymaking instead of slogans and finger-pointing.
What Happens Next? Probably Not Much
In practice, this EO won’t meaningfully change NIL policy or revenue sharing. The only thing it really does so far is shift blame away from the NCAA and Charlie Baker, who have been desperate to find another political body to absorb criticism. In that sense, Baker and the NCAA must be quietly thrilled to see the White House insert itself into the chaos because, for once, they’re not the ones under fire.
Still, those watching closely can see through it. This is not a roadmap to protect college sports. It’s a mirror reflecting political opportunism, not a policy platform rooted in the realities of athletic departments, athletes, or equity.
The future of college sports deserves a serious conversation - one that addresses gender equity, economic sustainability, competitive balance, and athlete rights. Unfortunately, this EO isn’t that conversation.
It’s just more noise.
