Congress taxes colleges for athletic eligibility decisions, bypassing Title IX
H.R. 10090 — 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. · Filed by Harriet Hageman (R-WY) · 3 cosponsors · Introduced Aug 13, 2026 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill imposes a 10% excise tax on private colleges and universities that allow male students to participate in female-designated intercollegiate sports. The tax is calculated on the institution's total athletic spending. Schools are prohibited from passing the tax cost to students through tuition or fee increases, and the Secretary of Education is tasked with enforcement.
Why we flagged it
The bill uses tax code to enforce a specific athletic eligibility policy rather than addressing the underlying Title IX or NCAA governance question directly. It is a financial penalty mechanism disguised as revenue legislation.
What the text implies
- The 'anti-pass-through' provision is likely unenforceable: schools cannot be prevented from raising tuition for legitimate operational reasons, and the Secretary of Education lacks clear authority to police institutional budgeting decisions.
- The tax applies only to private institutions, not state universities, creating a competitive disadvantage for private colleges and potentially driving enrollment shifts to public institutions.
The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
Who stands to gain
U.S. Treasury (excise tax revenue); State universities (competitive advantage if private institutions reduce athletic spending)