According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal impact of HB 370 cannot be accurately determined at this time. The bill introduces a new eligibility restriction for events seeking reimbursement from the Events Trust Fund (ETF) by prohibiting funding for events that allow "biological males" to compete in sports designated for female athletes. Because the number and nature of events that might be disqualified under this provision is currently unknown, it is not possible to quantify the precise financial implications for the state.

Although the bill could potentially result in cost savings by reducing the number of events eligible for ETF reimbursement, it could also lead to lost economic opportunities if disqualified events choose to relocate to other states. These lost opportunities might impact state tax revenues derived from tourism, hospitality, and related industries that benefit from large-scale events.

At the local level, no significant fiscal implications are anticipated. This suggests that while cities and localities that typically benefit from state-supported events might experience reduced access to state funds for certain events, those impacts are not expected to rise to a level that would meaningfully affect local budgets.

HB 370 amends Section 478.0051 of the Texas Government Code to make certain events ineligible for reimbursement under the Major Events Reimbursement Program (MERP) if they permit biological males to compete in sports designated for female athletes. The bill builds on prior legislative efforts—such as the Save Girls’ Sports Act (87th Legislature) and the Save Women’s Sports Act (88th Legislature)—which restricted male participation in female-designated interscholastic and collegiate athletics. HB 370 extends this principle to professional and publicly supported events seeking state reimbursement, reinforcing a consistent policy approach across all levels of athletic competition in Texas.

The central aim of the bill is to ensure fairness and integrity in female sports categories. By requiring that participation in female-designated sports be limited to biological females—based on official birth records—HB 370 affirms a long-standing distinction in competitive sports and seeks to safeguard opportunities and achievements specific to women and girls. The bill does not impose a general prohibition on transgender participation in sports, nor does it regulate private conduct; it simply withholds public subsidies from events that choose to adopt policies at odds with this standard.

Even for those who take issue with the existence or structure of the Major Events Trust Fund, HB 370 represents a responsible step in defining the conditions under which taxpayer money is distributed. While many critics rightly view the trust fund as a form of corporate welfare, this bill does not expand the fund’s reach or increase expenditures. Instead, it places a modest and targeted limitation on eligibility, ensuring that public resources are not used to subsidize events that disregard a basic principle of competitive equity. If the state is to maintain such a fund, applying clear, democratically enacted standards to its disbursement is prudent governance.

The bill provides a straightforward framework for determining eligibility, relying on existing government documentation to define biological sex. This removes ambiguity and avoids leaving eligibility decisions to ad hoc or politicized interpretations by funding administrators or third-party event organizers. It also includes a provision that allows biological males to participate in non-athlete roles—such as coaches or support staff—thereby limiting its scope solely to active competition.

Though the Legislative Budget Board was unable to estimate the number of events that might become ineligible as a result of this bill, no significant negative fiscal impact on state or local government is anticipated. In fact, the bill could yield modest savings by reducing the volume of reimbursements issued through the program. No new criminal penalties, regulatory burdens, or rulemaking authorities are created by the bill, making it a narrowly drawn policy measure with a limited footprint.

HB 370 does not seek to expand government power, create new entitlements, or punish individuals based on gender identity. It imposes a modest condition on the receipt of state funds that aligns with broader legislative efforts to protect women’s sports and preserve public confidence in the equitable use of taxpayer dollars. For those who support individual liberty, fiscal discipline, and the proper use of public funds, this bill offers a reasonable and focused improvement to the current operation of the Events Trust Fund. As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 370.

• Individual Liberty: The bill limits the ability of transgender individuals to participate in female-designated sports if the event seeks state reimbursement. However, it does not prohibit participation outright—it simply restricts access to taxpayer-funded subsidies. This narrows the scope of state endorsement without banning private conduct, balancing individual liberty with the state’s interest in defining eligibility for public funding.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces the principle that recipients of state funds bear responsibility for aligning with legislatively defined standards. It requires event organizers to decide: accept public dollars under certain conditions or operate independently without subsidies. This encourages personal and organizational accountability without dictating behavior.
• Free Enterprise: By tying eligibility for state funding to participation policies, the bill could discourage certain events from locating in Texas, especially those with inclusive policies for transgender athletes. This may reduce competitive neutrality in the marketplace for events. However, it does not ban or regulate private activity—it only sets terms for taxpayer engagement.
• Private Property Rights: Private event organizers retain full control over their events but are penalized with ineligibility for state funding if they choose to allow participation inconsistent with the bill’s biological sex standards. While this is not a direct infringement, it creates indirect pressure that affects how private facilities and events operate if they depend on public funding.
• Limited Government: The bill restricts the scope of state financial involvement in events that do not align with clearly defined legislative standards. Rather than expanding state regulation of conduct, it curtails state spending in areas deemed misaligned with policy priorities, reflecting a more restrained, purpose-driven government role in economic development.