World news and discussion on TalkFuse.
JACKSON THOMPSON: Spanberger’s office refuses to hand over emails on decision to drop women’s sports petition
Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger’s office has refused to release records about the withdrawal of a proposed rule on participation in women’s and girls’ sports, citing executive privilege, attorney-client privilege and an exemption for gubernatorial working papers. The decision has drawn scrutiny because the rule-making effort, begun under her predecessor, Glenn Youngkin, was abandoned after the State Board of Health had approved the petition.
The office said it was withholding fewer than 100 documents, including duplicates, and described them as correspondence and deliberative materials. A narrower request for emails from other staff produced no records, with the office saying they could not be found or did not exist. The petition was approved 14–0 in August 2025; after Spanberger took office, the board withdrew it, saying it lacked statutory authority to proceed. Spanberger gave the same rationale in a September interview.
In short
- Spanberger’s office withheld records on the sports rule withdrawal.
- It cited several privileges and a state working papers exemption.
- The board said it lacked authority to proceed.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The governor’s office can argue that the withheld emails are confidential working papers and legal advice, and that protecting candid internal discussion helps officials assess their authority before taking action. It also says the board lacked statutory authority to proceed, a rationale Spanberger has stated publicly, and reports that the narrower request found no other staff emails.
The case against
Critics can argue that the public should be able to examine why a rule approved unanimously by the health board was withdrawn, particularly when the decision reversed a process begun under the previous administration. Withholding nearly 100 records under broad privilege claims, alongside saying other requested emails could not be found or did not exist, may make it harder to assess whether the stated legal rationale fully explains the decision.