The Supreme Court has issued a landmark decision upholding former President Donald Trump’s policy requiring that all U.S. passports list a person’s biological sex at birth rather than a self-identified or non-binary gender designation. The 6–3 ruling effectively eliminates the “X” gender option that had been introduced under the Biden administration in 2021 to accommodate non-binary and transgender Americans. By affirming Trump’s executive directive, the Court reinforced the administration’s emphasis on what it termed “biological truth” in federal documentation, signaling a major shift in how gender identity is recognized in official government records. This decision marks one of the most consequential rulings on gender identity and federal identification in recent years.

The “X” gender marker policy was originally implemented during the Biden administration as part of a broader initiative to expand inclusivity and recognition of diverse gender identities in federal systems. The measure was widely praised by LGBTQ+ advocates as a milestone for equality and visibility. However, when Trump returned to office in 2025, he swiftly moved to reverse these changes through a series of executive orders aimed at restoring what he described as traditional and biologically based standards for government documentation. The passport policy was among the first to be reinstated, part of a broader agenda to roll back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) measures across federal agencies. Trump and his supporters argued that accurate biological records were necessary for maintaining consistency and integrity in official identification.

The reinstated policy immediately faced legal challenges from civil rights groups and affected individuals. In April 2025, a federal district court temporarily blocked its enforcement, ruling that it likely violated constitutional protections by discriminating based on sex and gender identity. The court found that because the policy imposed distinctions rooted in sex, it required heightened judicial scrutiny. Advocacy organizations warned that the restriction could endanger transgender and non-binary Americans by forcing them to carry documents that do not align with their lived identities, potentially exposing them to harassment, discrimination, or difficulties when traveling. The ruling was seen as an early legal victory for LGBTQ+ rights advocates, though it was short-lived.

Following the district court’s injunction, the Trump administration appealed the decision, bringing the issue before the Supreme Court. The Court’s conservative majority ultimately sided with the administration, granting a stay that allowed the policy to take effect and later upholding its constitutionality. Writing for the majority, the justices reasoned that listing an individual’s biological sex at birth on a passport constituted a factual record similar to documenting a person’s birthplace or date of birth. The majority further concluded that the policy did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it applied uniformly to all applicants, regardless of their gender identity, and was not motivated by discriminatory intent. The Court’s liberal justices dissented sharply, arguing that the policy undermines the dignity and safety of non-binary and transgender individuals.

The Court’s decision has immediate and far-reaching consequences for passport applicants nationwide. Under the new rule, all individuals must now choose either “male” or “female” when applying for or renewing a U.S. passport. Non-binary and transgender advocates have condemned the decision as a significant setback for recognition and equality, warning that it will create practical and psychological burdens for those whose gender identity does not align with their assigned sex at birth. Supporters of the ruling, however, contend that it restores clarity, uniformity, and scientific accuracy to federal records. They argue that government identification should reflect immutable biological facts rather than subjective identity categories.

Beyond its immediate effects on passport policy, the Supreme Court’s decision carries broader political and social implications. It represents a clear legal and ideological victory for Trump’s conservative platform, which has sought to reverse many of the inclusionary policies of previous administrations. The ruling may influence forthcoming legal and legislative battles over gender recognition at the federal and state levels. Some states currently allow non-binary designations on driver’s licenses and birth certificates, creating potential conflicts between state and federal identification standards. As these disputes unfold, the Court’s decision is expected to shape the national debate over gender, identity, and the role of government in recognizing personal identity expression for years to come.