Since our August 2025 discussion of the SCORE Act and President Trump’s earlier executive order on college sports, the Administration has now taken a second bite at the apple.
While the first executive order had no notable impact, President Trump signed another executive order on April 3, 2026, addressing college athletics, expanding on the first order and touching on issues ranging from how long athletes can play college sports and how often they can transfer, to heightened protections for women’s and Olympic sports.
While the order takes direct aim at athletes’ ability to transfer multiple times, it would not have an immediate impact on the transfer portal, which just opened this week for basketball. The order does not go into effect until August 1 and is sure to face legal challenges.
Key Themes of the Second Executive Order
- Transfer regulation and eligibility. The order urges the NCAA to revisit rules governing transfer frequency (one “free” transfer as an undergraduate and again as a graduate) and eligibility (a five-year participation window).
- Protection of women’s and Olympic sports. Echoing the first order, the Administration emphasizes safeguarding women’s sports and Olympic-development programs from cuts driven by revenue-sharing pressures.
- Guarantee medical care for athletes. The order directs that athletic programs must provide medical care for student-athletes regarding injuries related to intercollegiate athletics.
- Establish protections from unscrupulous agent conduct. This includes the NCAA creating a national registry for player agents.
- Federal enforcement of NIL. The order outlines potential federal enforcement mechanisms and coordination among the Department of Education, Department of Justice, and FTC, while reiterating opposition to pay-for-play arrangements outside true NIL activity.
- Rules that state explicitly that “professional athletes cannot return to college athletics.” This would forbid former G League players, European hockey players and potentially Canadian Hockey League players from joining college teams.
- Renewed call to Congress. The order again urges passage of comprehensive federal legislation governing NIL and athlete compensation.
What the Order Signals to the NCAA—and What It Does Not
Executive orders cannot rewrite NCAA bylaws, grant antitrust immunity, or resolve athlete employment classification. Instead, they can influence enforcement priorities and shape the policy narrative, but they lack the force of statutory reform – the president cannot unilaterally rewrite a statute. They can lay also the groundwork for federal legislation by signaling executive branch priorities.
The message to NCAA leadership is clear: the Administration supports greater national uniformity, tighter controls on NIL-related conduct, and guardrails designed to preserve the current collegiate model. Whether the NCAA chooses or is able to implement these changes without further judicial scrutiny remains an open question.
Implications for Institutions and Student-Athletes
For institutions, the order adds to an already complex compliance environment. Colleges must navigate implementation of the House settlement, evolving NCAA guidance, unresolved Title IX implications, and increasing federal scrutiny. They will have to follow the order or ignore previous judicial decisions.
For student-athletes, the order offers rhetorical support but few enforceable new rights, particularly in areas such as employment status, collective bargaining, or guaranteed revenue sharing.
Looking Ahead
While both executive orders strongly encourage congressional action, there is reason to be skeptical that Congress will deliver comprehensive federal NIL or college sports legislation in the near term. The current political environment — marked by narrow margins, sharp partisan division, and competing legislative priorities—makes consensus on an issue as complex and contentious as college athletics reform difficult to achieve.
Although proposals such as the SCORE Act continue to advance incrementally, sustained bipartisan momentum appears uncertain, as has lacked the necessary backing to move forward thus far. Many of the most divisive issues—including antitrust immunity, athlete employment status, and federal preemption of state law—remain political fault lines rather than areas of convergence. As a result, executive orders may increasingly function as signaling devices rather than preludes to enacted legislation.
Absent congressional action, governance of college sports is likely to continue evolving through a combination of NCAA rulemaking, conference-level experimentation, litigation-driven outcomes, and selective federal enforcement. For institutions and student-athletes alike, this points to a prolonged period of uncertainty—one in which executive branch pressure and judicial decisions may matter more than statutory reform, at least in the short to medium term.
The Sports & NIL lawyers at Greenspoon Marder will continue to monitor these developments and provide updates as the legislative and regulatory landscape evolves. For questions or legal guidance, please contact me at [email protected].
