The U.S. Supreme Court has approved the Trump administration’s policy to require that U.S. passports include biological sex markers, effectively reinstating the requirement for passports to reflect the sex assigned at birth.
This decision has been framed as a victory for President Donald Trump’s efforts to combat what he refers to as ‘gender ideology extremism.’ The Supreme Court’s ruling allows the enforcement of the policy while the legal case moves forward. The Supreme Court’s decision follows months of legal challenges, including an initial court injunction that blocked the requirement nationwide in June and an appeal that prevented the injunction from being suspended in September, until the Supreme Court’s intervention.
The policy stems from an executive order signed by Trump in January titled ‘Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.’ This executive order instructs federal agencies, including the State Department, to require that identification documents reflect ‘sex,’ defined as an immutable biological classification, and to remove the nonbinary ‘X’ marker that was allowed under the previous administration. Critics have raised concerns that the policy could expose transgender individuals to harassment and violence when their documents do not align with their gender identity.
The Trump administration has defended the change, stating that it ensures federal documents ‘reflect biological truth’ and prevents ‘inaccurate sex designations’ on identification used for communication with foreign governments. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have both expressed support for the decision, calling it a ‘victory for common sense’ and a ‘huge win,’ respectively.
The State Department had allowed sex designations to differ from the sex assigned at birth since 1992, with the exception of medical documentation. Under the Biden administration, the department added the ‘X’ option in 2021, a change that the Supreme Court’s latest order now pauses. This policy shift has sparked significant debate, highlighting the broader implications for identity recognition and governmental regulation in the United States.