PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large] · R–WY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 2, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10090 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10090 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10090 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10090 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-08-13 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The bill would impose a tax on covered colleges and universities that allow an individual defined by the bill as male to participate in intercollegiate sports designated for females. The tax would equal 10% of the institution’s spending on all intercollegiate athletic programs for that tax year. Institutions could not raise students’ tuition or mandatory fees because of this tax.
There is hereby imposed on any applicable institution of higher education that permits, for any portion of a taxable year, the participation of an individual whose sex is male in any intercollegiate athletic program or event designated for females, a tax equal to 10 percent of the institution’s aggregate expenditures on all intercollegiate athletic programs during such taxable year.
An institution subject to the tax imposed under subsection (a) shall not increase the amount of tuition or mandatory fees charged to enrolled students in any academic year as a result of liability under this section.
Allowing the specified participation during any portion of a tax year would trigger the tax. Its calculation would use spending on all intercollegiate athletic programs during that year, rather than only the affected program or event.
There is hereby imposed on any applicable institution of higher education that permits, for any portion of a taxable year, the participation of an individual whose sex is male in any intercollegiate athletic program or event designated for females, a tax equal to 10 percent of the institution’s aggregate expenditures on all intercollegiate athletic programs during such taxable year.
Coverage would depend on two existing tax-law provisions: an institution must meet the referenced definition of an eligible educational institution and must fall outside a referenced category relating to State colleges and universities. Those existing provisions are not reproduced in the bundle.
The term applicable institution of higher education means any eligible educational institution (as defined in section 25A(f)(2)) which is not described in the first sentence of section 511(a)(2)(B) (relating to State colleges and universities).
The bill would define sex as biological sex, either male or female. Its male and female definitions refer to reproductive systems associated with sperm or eggs, respectively, and include past, future, and hypothetical development absent a developmental or genetic anomaly or historical accident.
The term male means an individual who has, had, will have, or would have (but for a developmental or genetic anomaly or historical accident) the reproductive system that at some point produces, transports, and utilizes sperm for fertilization.
The term female means an individual who has, had, will have, or would have (but for a developmental or genetic anomaly or historical accident) the reproductive system that at some point produces, transports, and utilizes eggs for fertilization.
The term sex means an individual’s biological sex, either male or female.
Institutions owing the tax would be prohibited from increasing enrolled students’ tuition or mandatory fees in any academic year because of that liability. The Secretary of Education would be required to issue regulations enforcing this restriction. The restriction concerns increases caused by the tax, rather than a general freeze on tuition and fees.
An institution subject to the tax imposed under subsection (a) shall not increase the amount of tuition or mandatory fees charged to enrolled students in any academic year as a result of liability under this section. The Secretary of Education shall promulgate regulations to enforce this subsection.
The bill would add section 4960A to the Internal Revenue Code and add a corresponding entry to its table of sections.
Subchapter D of chapter 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new section: 4960A.
The table of sections for subchapter D of chapter 42 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new item: Sec. 4960A. Tax on certain institutions of higher education that allow male participation in female intercollegiate athletic programs or events.
The proposed amendments would apply to tax years beginning after December 31, 2025.
The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
The supplied September 2, 2026 source snapshot records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Ways and Means on August 13, 2026. It does not establish the bill’s status after that snapshot.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-02T08:06:25Z. 2026-08-13: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. 2026-08-13: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-13. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy attachment to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not cover other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied introduced text contains an express institutional exclusion from the proposed tax. Classification identifies differential treatment without judging its justification.
Institutions described in the first sentence of Internal Revenue Code section 511(a)(2)(B), identified by the bill as relating to State colleges and universities, would be excluded from the proposed tax’s coverage. This gives that statutory category an exemption within the bill’s main tax policy. The referenced provision is not supplied, so the precise beneficiaries cannot be determined here.
The term applicable institution of higher education means any eligible educational institution (as defined in section 25A(f)(2)) which is not described in the first sentence of section 511(a)(2)(B) (relating to State colleges and universities).
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 2, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI