Federal court reviews challenge to executive order eliminating gender-neutral ‘X’ marker on passports
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A federal judge has pressed the Trump administration to justify its decision to eliminate the gender-neutral “X” marker from U.S. passports, questioning what scientific or policy rationale underpinned the policy change. The inquiry was raised during a hearing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, where Judge Julia Kobick is reviewing a lawsuit filed by several transgender plaintiffs and advocacy groups.
“You’ve got to give me something, or else I’ll assume there’s nothing,” Judge Kobick said, demanding clarity on what alternatives or scientific assessments were considered before issuing the guidance to remove the “X” designation. The lawsuit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Massachusetts, and the law firm Covington & Burlington LLP, seeks a preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of the new directive and reinstate the option for an “X” sex marker while the case proceeds.
The plaintiffs argue that the removal of the non-binary identifier forces transgender individuals to disclose personal information at border crossings, putting them at risk of discrimination and violence. As stated in court filings, they assert the policy requires them to “out” themselves to customs agents and other authorities, potentially jeopardizing their safety during international travel.
The policy stems from President Donald Trump’s January 20, 2025 executive order titled Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government. The order mandates that federal identification documents, including passports and Consular Reports of Birth Abroad (CRBAs), reflect only “M” or “F” designations matching a person’s biological sex at birth.
“The president has been granted the authority by Congress to set these rules and procedures and has done so here,” Department of Justice attorney Benjamin Takemoto argued during the hearing. “The president doesn’t need to undergo notice-and-comment rulemaking when they issue a rule like this.”
According to the Department of State’s official guidance on its Travel.State.Gov website, “We will no longer issue U.S. passports or Consular Reports of Birth Abroad (CRBAs) with an X marker. We will only issue passports with an M or F sex marker that match the customer’s biological sex at birth.”
The executive order also states: “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.” It directs the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security, as well as the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, to implement the changes across all forms of federal identification, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards.
Since the executive order was issued, several public figures and activists have criticized the administration. HBO’s Euphoria actor Hunter Schafer was among those whose passport was reportedly updated to list their biological sex, prompting widespread backlash on social media. Breitbart News reported Schafer’s reaction as emblematic of a broader uproar in the transgender community.
In a press release, Ashton Orr, a transgender man and West Virginia resident named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, accused the Trump administration of infringing on personal liberties. “This is about control. President Trump is trying to control the lives and identities of transgender people,” Orr stated, according to the Washington Blade.
The outcome of the lawsuit could have national implications, not only for how gender identity is treated in federal documentation but also for the broader debate over the executive branch’s discretion in defining sex-based policy.
For now, the court has not issued a ruling on the request for a preliminary injunction, but Judge Kobick made clear that the administration will be expected to provide a substantive defense for the change. As the legal battle continues, plaintiffs and advocacy organizations argue that the administration’s interpretation of biological sex undermines civil liberties and disregards the lived experiences of transgender Americans.
Leave a Comment