Spanberger Withholds Records on Abandoned Rule Excluding Males from Women's Sports

Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger’s office has buried the trail. They are withholding every single record they found in response to a Freedom of Information Act request regarding the quiet abandonment of a rule-making effort designed to keep males out of women’s and girls’ sports. The Democratic governor’s team invoked executive privilege, attorney-client privilege, and a state exemption for gubernatorial working papers to block access. This denial covers the withdrawal of an initiative that was advanced under her Republican predecessor, Glenn Youngkin.

"The volume of records being withheld is less than 100 documents, including many duplicates," the office stated. "The subject matter of the withheld records is correspondence and deliberative materials."

They added, "The withheld records are excluded from mandatory disclosure as working papers and correspondence of the Office of the Governor under Section 2.2-3705.7(2), and/or as attorney-client privileged under Section 2.2-3705.1(2)." The office also noted, "Your request also seeks information protected by executive privilege."

The Virginia State Board of Health pulled the petition on July 30. That effort aimed to introduce protections for girls' sports, specifically restricting male participation in organized female athletic teams and competitions. It also sought to limit access to designated female spaces where women or girls could be undressed.

OutKick’s initial FOIA request targeted emails from members of the governor’s office concerning the withdrawal, covering the period from Spanberger taking office through July 30. When that hit a wall, OutKick submitted a narrower request seeking emails from employees other than the officials specifically identified in the gubernatorial exemption. That request also produced nothing.

"In further response to your FOIA request, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 2.2-3704(B)(3), please be advised that, based upon reasonable inquiry within the Office of the Governor, the requested records could not be found or do not exist," the office wrote.

The rulemaking process began with a petition filed in April 2025 by Réka György, Lily Mullens, and Carter Satterfield. The Board of Health approved that petition 14–0 in August 2025. Youngkin’s administration subsequently advanced the notice of intended regulatory action, which cleared gubernatorial review on Oct. 28, 2025. It was published Nov. 17, and the public comment period ended Dec. 17.

The initiative sat at that preliminary stage until it was withdrawn under Spanberger. The formal withdrawal notice, published in the Virginia Register of Regulations on Aug. 24, offered a brief explanation. "Upon review of statutory authority, the State Board of Health is not proceeding with this regulatory action," it said.

The original agency background document cited Virginia’s public health statutes as the basis for proceeding. However, it also identified the health department’s enforcement authority and capacity as issues to be considered while developing the regulations. Spanberger publicly defended the decision in September in an interview with Radio IQ.

"There’s no legal authority to move forward with rulemaking and prior administrations may have tried to create lanes, and we’re not doing that," she said.

Virginia law allows the governor’s office to withhold qualifying correspondence and records prepared for designated officials’ personal or deliberative use. This exemption is discretionary unless another law prohibits disclosure. Its reach can include records written by lower-level employees for protected officials, meaning an employee’s job title alone does not determine whether a record must be released. State law also requires disclosure of nonexempt portions of records when an exclusion does not cover their entire contents.

The agency's reply stayed vague. It failed to say if they could share parts of the files. No clarification on partial releases. This silence creates a gap in public accountability. Citizens deserve to know what is open and what stays hidden. Clear rules prevent confusion. They also protect privacy. The office needs to be specific. Vague answers frustrate requesters. They also stall transparency efforts.