Upon his return to the White House, Donald Trump promptly began reshaping federal policies. In just a matter of hours, numerous executive orders were signed, overturning crucial decisions made by the previous administration. One of these directives, particularly controversial, concerns gender recognition.

A novel decree enforces a rigid binary definition of gender across all federal documentation. Non-binary and transgender individuals now encounter limitations on passports, legal records, and other official paperwork. The swift execution of these changes has left many in a state of confusion, scrambling to comprehend the repercussions and explore legal remedies.
Aside from passports, the order carries broader implications, influencing legal documents, penitentiaries, and federal policies pertaining to gender identity. Advocacy groups are mobilizing, lawsuits are being prepared, and affected individuals are seeking out alternatives ardently. Grasping the full extent of these alterations is imperative for those directly impacted and anyone with a vested interest in the future of gender identity rights in the United States.
Alterations in the Executive Order
Trump’s executive order, titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” enacts a sweeping rollback of gender identity recognition in federal records. This order enforces a strict sex definition based on biological characteristics at birth, effectively negating previous policies that acknowledged gender diversity.
During the Biden administration, Americans had the option to choose a non-binary X gender marker on their passports, aligning with a growing number of international practices. The first U.S. passport with an X marker was issued in October 2021, with officials hailing it as a step toward inclusivity. Jessica Stern, the former U.S. Special Envoy for LGBTQ+ Rights, remarked: “The addition of a third gender marker propels the U.S. toward ensuring that our administrative systems account for the diversity of gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics among U.S. citizens.”
Trump’s new order reverses this advancement, stipulating that all official documents must now only reflect male or female designations based on biological sex. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reinforced this shift in an internal memo, informing State Department employees: “The policy of the United States is that an individual’s sex is not changeable. Sex and not gender shall be used on passports and consular reports of birth abroad.”
Beyond documentation, the order significantly modifies policies related to incarceration. In the past, transgender women could be placed in women’s prisons under certain circumstances, but the new directive mandates that all federal prison housing assignments strictly adhere to biological sex.
This ruling has sparked safety concerns, as transgender advocacy groups argue that placing trans women in men’s prisons heightens the risk of violence and abuse. The executive order also curtails gender-affirming policies across other federal institutions, indicating that agencies which previously acknowledged gender identity in legal cases, healthcare records, and workplace protections may now revert to binary sex classifications.
Impact on Passports and Impacted Individuals
Trump’s executive order has resulted in an immediate suspension of all passport applications requesting an X gender marker, leaving countless non-binary, intersex, and gender-nonconforming individuals in legal uncertainty. This decision impacts future applicants and those requiring passport renewal or updates.
The X gender marker was introduced under the Biden administration as part of broader efforts to broaden recognition of gender diversity in federal documentation. The first U.S. passport with an X designation was issued in October 2021, marking a historic shift toward inclusivity. This decision aligned the U.S. with countries such as Canada, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand, which already offered non-binary gender options on official paperwork.
Jessica Stern, former U.S. Special Envoy for LGBTQ+ Rights, hailed the introduction of the X marker as “a momentous step,” stating, “The addition of a third gender marker propels the U.S. forward toward ensuring that our administrative systems account for the diversity of gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics among U.S. citizens.” Now, that progress has been eradicated.
In an internal memo obtained by The Guardian, Secretary of State Marco Rubio instructed State Department employees and stated: “Suspend any application requesting an X sex marker. Suspend any application where the applicant is seeking to change their sex marker.”
Individuals with pending passport applications and X-gender requests will no longer be processed. The State Department has not provided alternative solutions for those affected, creating uncertainty about how they will navigate travel, employment, or legal identification.
While existing X-marker passports remain valid, concerns have been raised. Firstly, no guidance has been given on whether X marker holders can renew their passports. Secondly, individuals traveling with X-marker passports could encounter heightened scrutiny at customs in countries that no longer recognize the designation. Lastly, U.S. citizens with an X passport but other legal documents (such as Social Security records or state-issued IDs) marked as male or female may encounter challenges with verification processes in federal and international systems.
Reactions and Legal Disputes
LG/BT/Q+ advocacy groups have denounced the executive order, denouncing it as a direct assault on the rights of transgender and non-binary individuals. President of GLAAD, Sarah Kate Ellis, condemned the decision and remarked, “Transgender people are already serving in the military with honor and keeping our country and military safer and stronger. They meet the same rigorous health and readiness standards and continue to do so. The Trump administration’s inaccurate statements and rhetoric targeting transgender people are not based on facts.”
Legal experts anticipate a surge of lawsuits contesting the constitutionality of the executive order. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has already indicated intentions to file an injunction, arguing that the order discriminates against a legally recognized group of individuals.
Legal challenges to the executive order are expected to revolve around multiple arguments. Advocates contend that the policy infringes upon the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against non-binary individuals and compelling them to misrepresent their identity on official documents. Another crucial legal contention involves administrative law, with opponents asserting that the State Department lacks the authority to suspend X gender passports without proper legislative oversight retroactively. Furthermore, human rights organizations have raised alarms regarding potential violations of U.S. treaty obligations, emphasizing that this policy shift may undermine identity protections recognized by international law.
What to Do If Affected
Passports issued with an X gender marker remain valid for the time being, but individuals may encounter challenges when updating or renewing them down the line. It is critical to monitor passport expiration dates, as currently valid passports can still be utilized for travel until they expire.
Those eligible for renewal should contemplate doing so at the earliest opportunity to avoid possible limitations if the policy becomes stricter. Staying abreast of legal developments is also crucial, as multiple advocacy groups and legal organizations are actively contesting the executive order, and forthcoming court rulings could impact passport regulations.
Individuals who applied for an X gender marker passport before the executive order went into effect should first reach out to the U.S. State Department to check the status of their application. Many applications may have been placed on hold or rejected due to the policy modification. Seeking legal counsel can also be beneficial, as groups like the ACLU and Lambda Legal offer assistance and guidance for those affected by gender-related documentation policies.
Non-binary individuals traveling with an X-gender passport may face hurdles due to discrepancies in U.S. policy and international recognition. Some countries might refuse entry or question passport validity, emphasizing the need to consult the embassy of the destination country before making travel arrangements. Airlines and TSA may demand supplementary verification if passport details do not align with official policies. Carrying supporting documentation, such as a state-issued ID or previous passport records, can assist in mitigating potential challenges. While U.S. consulates provide limited aid in cases of refusal at borders or discrimination, consular officers must now adhere to updated federal documentation rules.
The Future of Gender Identity Documentation in the U.S.
Trump’s executive order has revamped federal gender documentation policies, eliminating the X gender marker choice for passports and reinforcing a binary definition of sex. These adjustments impact numerous non-binary Americans, sparking worries about legal recognition, travel rights, and broader civil liberties.
Legal disputes are underway, with advocacy groups and civil rights organizations contending that the order violates constitutional safeguards and anti-discrimination statutes. Court decisions in the forthcoming months may determine the fate of the policy. The introduction of the X gender marker by the Biden administration in 2021 was viewed as a significant stride toward inclusivity, and its abrupt reversal underscores the profound political schism over gender identity rights in the U.S.
Beyond legal skirmishes, the new policy instigates uncertainties concerning future federal documentation regulations. If successfully challenged, passport choices may be reinstated; however, if upheld, similar restrictions could extend to other government-issued identification.
Feel free to SHARE this article with your loved ones!
Anne Hathaway Reveals an Incident That Made Her Choose Sobriety as She Celebrates 5-Year Milestone
Anne Hathaway achieved a significant milestone in her journey of maintaining sobriety. The 41-year-old actress revealed that she has been living a healthy lifestyle for five years. Hathaway also expressed her joy about reaching this milestone and shared an incident that helped her break the bad habit.
Hathaway brought up her sobriety, when asked about her thoughts on middle age.

In her new movie, The Idea of You, Hathaway played Solène, a 40-year-old divorced mom who finds herself in a romance with a younger man—a singer in a boy band, played by Nicholas Galitzine. During an interview about her new role, she was questioned about her thoughts on middle age.
Hathaway responded, “I don’t take it seriously. There are so many other things I identify as milestones. I don’t normally talk about it, but I’m over five years sober. That feels like a milestone to me.” She admitted that this problem was probably a method she used to deal with physical stress caused by feeling disconnected from her body.
What about an age, the actress said she feels blessed to be her age, “40 feels like a gift. The fact of the matter is, I hesitate at calling things ‘middle age’ simply because I can be a semantic stickler and I could get hit by a car later today. We don’t know if this is middle age. We don’t know anything.”
She also revealed an incident that made her choose sobriety.

The actress from Princess Diariesexplained that her choice wasn’t a criticism of this particular habit. “I knew deep down it wasn’t for me,” she said, mentioning how hard it was to explain to people that she wasn’t drinking at all in the beginning.
Eventually, Hathaway had a realization that made her stop being tough on herself for her decision, “If you’re allergic to something or have an anaphylactic reaction to something, you don’t argue with it. So I stopped arguing with it,” the star said, making it clear that she doesn’t judge anyone.

Hathaway’s choice to start a healthy lifestyle came as she was adjusting to being a mom of two. Her oldest son Johnathan just turned 8, and youngest son Jack is 3 years old. The actress mentioned that she made this decision for the next 18 years while her sons live in her house.
Talking about her eldest son, she opened up about an incident that made her think about quitting the bad habit, “He’s getting to an age where he really does need me all the time in the mornings. I did one school run one day where I dropped him off at school, I wasn’t driving, but I was hungover, and that was enough for me. I didn’t love that one.”
The Oscar winning actress also decided to cut out other unhealthy habits from her life as much as possible, like social media. “I make a lot of my lifestyle choices in service of supporting mental health. I stopped participating in things that I know to be draining or can cause spirals. I actually don’t have a relationship with myself online,” Hathaway shared.
Other celebrities who have been open about their sobriety.
Bradley Cooper
Bradley Cooper has been sober since he was 29. In 2013, he said that he chose sobriety because he realized it was going to ruin his life if he kept going. In 2023, Cooper expressed gratitude for overcoming his bad habits, saying he feels “very lucky.”
Tom Holland

Tom Holland mentioned that he’s the “happiest I’ve ever been in my life” since he started his journey of sobriety. Holland admitted he definitely had a problem, “I was really, really struggling, and I started to really worry that maybe I had a problem. So I decided that I would wait until my birthday, which is June 1. I said to myself, ’If I can do six months without it, then I can prove to myself that I don’t have a problem.’ And by the time I got to June 1, I was the happiest I’ve ever been in my life.”
Jessica Simpson

Jessica Simpson decided to become sober so she could be there for her kids, “I was at a place, and I was missing out on moments with my children, and then they were seeing me, and they were very confused.”
“I just wanted to be present and have clarity and be a good role model for my children, because I always wanted to be a good role model for the world,” she explained her decision.
Daniel Radcliffe
Daniel Radcliffe struggled a lot during the filming of the Harry Potter movies. In the interview in 2015, Radcliffe talked about his battle, “There was a period when I was transitioning out of ’Potter’ and entering the real world, where suddenly I didn’t have that stability anymore. I was quite distraught on the final day of ’Potter.’ I was really anxious. I was living by myself, and I think I was really scared.”
Lana Del Rey

In a 2012 interview, Lana Del Rey revealed her teenage battles, “That’s really why I got sent to boarding school aged 14. I knew it was a problem when I liked it more than I liked doing anything else.”
Anne Hathaway revealed the heartbreaking reason why she lost roles after an Oscar win. Click here to know the details.
Leave a Reply