Supreme Court Upholds Trump Policy on Passport Gender Markers

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump’s policy restricting gender markers on U.S. passports, requiring that passports reflect a person’s biological sex at birth. The decision, passed 6-3, eliminates the option for the ‘X’ gender designation that had been available under prior rules, effectively enforcing the Trump administration’s stance on federal documentation.

The ‘X’ marker had been implemented in October 2021 under the Biden administration to accommodate non-binary and transgender individuals. Trump, upon beginning his second term in 2025, issued executive orders aimed at restoring what he described as “biological truth” in government records, including passport designations.

The policy sparked immediate legal challenges. In April 2025, a federal judge blocked enforcement, arguing that the restriction required intermediate judicial scrutiny because it classified applicants based on sex. Critics warned that the policy could harm non-binary and transgender individuals navigating official documentation.

The Trump administration appealed, and the Supreme Court granted a stay, allowing the policy to take effect while litigation continues. The Court reasoned that recording biological sex at birth is akin to noting a factual element like country of birth and does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. It also rejected claims that the policy was motivated solely by animus.

The ruling directly affects passport applications nationwide, requiring non-binary and transgender individuals to select male or female. Advocates warned that the policy could create practical and psychological challenges, while supporters argued it preserves government consistency and accuracy in official records.

The decision has broader political and social implications. It represents a clear win for Trump’s conservative agenda and could influence similar federal policies. Critics foresee conflicts with state laws allowing non-binary designations, suggesting ongoing legal and cultural debates over the recognition of gender identity in government documentation.