10
Loading video...
By Newsweek Editors
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Every reaping in Panem, the postapocalyptic country in Suzanne Collins' The Hunger Games series, has one rule. One boy, one girl, per district, drawn from a glass ball in the town square. It doesn't matter whether the district holds 8,000 people, like District 12, or 800,000. Every district sends an equal quota of children to fight to the death.
It was uncharitable, though not surprising, that California Governor Gavin Newsom and the Democratic Party reached for this fiction within hours of President Donald Trump announcing the Patriot Games, the military-inspired competition for teenage athletes being held this weekend. "May the odds be ever in your favor," Newsom posted in December, quoting the franchise's catchphrase.
Read More on Analysis
It's a joke, of course. From August 9 to 11, more than 100 teenagers, one boy and one girl from each state, territory or tribal nation, will compete at SPIRE Academy in Geneva, Ohio, the campus where Trump rallied in 2016. They will run skills rounds drawn from football, basketball, soccer and track, the challenges of the revived Presidential Fitness Test, a boot camp circuit and an obstacle course. On August 13, one male and one female champion will be crowned, each collecting $125,000.
So the prize is a scholarship, and the teenagers filled out an application instead of watching their names go into a bowl. But perhaps Newsom and the other Democratic critics were on to something. Because there is an irony in the Patriot Games: it takes affirmative action by geography and sex and applies it to an America 250 celebration. The difference is that it's the kind of affirmative action the administration wants, not the kind it has repeatedly said it doesn't want.
The Familiar Story
Democratic reaction to the Patriot Games was mostly Newsom-flavored mockery. In response, Dean Cain, the former Superman actor who competed on American Gladiators and now promotes the event, told the New York Post that nobody will be killed, the teenagers asked to be there, and no tribute is required.
The sex split is not incidental either. Announcing the games, Trump promised no men would play in women's sports, tying the event to his February 2025 order reserving female athletic categories.
The fitness test he revived last July, and whose award he brought back in May, sets its own benchmarks by gender too. Nobody on either side of the debate called any of that a quota.
Getty Images
What's Really Going On
Yet the Patriot Games begin with two decisions made before the selection committee watches a single application video.
The first is that every state and territory must be represented, and the second is that the field must contain one boy and one girl from each.
The committee was therefore never asked to identify the best teenage all-rounders in the country and rank them from first to last. It was asked to find the strongest eligible candidates for positions already defined by sex and geography.
That is a quota. Does it mean it is also unfair?
The National Federation of State High School Associations recorded 852,575 athletic participations in California during the 2024-25 school year: 474,876 among boys and 377,699 among girls. Wyoming recorded 22,217 in total: 12,196 among boys and 10,021 among girls.
That makes California's potential athletic field roughly 39 times larger for boys and 38 times larger for girls. Yet California and Wyoming were each allotted precisely one male and one female contestant.
The organizers did not merely tolerate that disparity, but designed it. The reason is that the Patriot Games are intended to be a national celebration, an attempt to put the whole American map on television as a shared festivity.
That, however, is the point. The Trump administration does not object to group-conscious selection. It objects to particular groups being recognized for particular purposes.
Geography has, in fact, always occupied a place beside race in American affirmative-action theory.
In the Supreme Court's 1978 decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Justice Lewis Powell rejected the medical school's rigid racial quota but allowed race to operate as one consideration within an individualized admissions process.
The model came from Harvard. Its description of holistic admissions said that "a farm boy from Idaho" might bring something to the college that a Boston applicant could not, before making a similar argument about the contribution of racial background. Geography and race were presented as examples of characteristics that might add something to an institution beyond an applicant's scores.
After courts barred race-conscious admissions in Texas in the 1990s, the state guaranteed admission to students near the top of every high school's graduating class. Geography became a race-neutral way of producing a class drawn from different communities, including schools serving heavily minority neighborhoods.
Then, in 2023, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ended the use of race as an admissions advantage at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The ruling did not prohibit institutions from seeking geographic, economic or experiential diversity through race-neutral means.
The Trump administration has pushed the distinction further.
Executive Order 14281, signed in April 2025, rejects policies producing outcomes predetermined by immutable characteristics and argues for equality of opportunity rather than equal results. Its central promise is that people should be treated as individuals rather than as components of racial groups.
The Justice Department's subsequent guidance warned that targeting particular geographic areas could become unlawful when geography was being used as a concealed substitute for race. That is not what the Patriot Games are doing: the games are honest about their quotas.
The opposing argument is also that geography is not an immutable characteristic. Try telling that to a farm boy from Idaho, though.
The event's "military-inspired" aesthetic creates another apparent contrast, though not quite the one its critics may imagine.
The military does not assign every state an equal number of soldiers, pilots or sailors. Of course it doesn't, as that would not lead to the best outcomes in something as serious as armed conflict.
In fiscal 2022, Texas supplied 12.2 percent of recruits, more than any other state, and four of the five largest recruiting states were also four of the five most populous. Adjusted for population, Hawaii, Florida and Georgia were the most overrepresented. No one treated either pattern as a geographic imbalance requiring every state to be brought up or down.
The closer military comparison is sex.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has directed the services to use common physical standards for men and women in combat roles. His argument is that the challenge does not change according to the sex of the person facing it.
Addressing senior officers in September 2025, Hegseth said the military had promoted leaders for the wrong reasons, "based on their race, based on gender quotas." The new bar, he said, would be gender-neutral everywhere physical output decides a job, even if it meant fewer women qualifying for some combat roles.
The Army's sex-neutral fitness standard took effect for active-duty soldiers in designated combat specialties in January 2026 and for the Reserve and National Guard in June.
The Patriot Games make a different choice. They guarantee a male champion and a female champion rather than declaring one overall winner irrespective of sex.
There is a straightforward defense of that decision too. Men's and women's sporting categories exist because biological differences affect athletic performance. Separate competition can therefore protect meaningful opportunities for female athletes rather than award them an artificial advantage.
That defense has a lot to commend it. But it is still an argument for group-conscious design.
None of this is to say that race-conscious admissions, female sporting categories and state representation are morally interchangeable. They clearly are not.
The more uncomfortable point is that "merit" alone cannot decide the question, because an institution must define its goal before it can select the most meritorious person for it.
That is the logic defenders of affirmative action have invoked for decades: institutions assemble classes, teams and workforces rather than merely publishing league tables of isolated human beings. Individual excellence and collective composition can be pursued simultaneously because merit is assessed in relation to what the institution is trying to build.
At the Patriot Games, sex sorts the contestants into two fields and geography determines who may enter them. Those distinctions are celebrated as fairness and, in the organizers' phrase, hometown pride.
Elsewhere, the administration describes group-conscious selection as the replacement of individuals with woke dogma.
So the question raised in Ohio is not whether every quota is equally fair, or equally discriminatory.
It is why one quota is condemned as social engineering while another is broadcast as a celebration of America.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines