U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has directed the State Department to halt the processing of passport applications that request an “X” gender marker, a designation used by many transgender and non-binary individuals. The new directive, announced Thursday, January 23, marks a significant shift in U.S. policy regarding gender markers on official documents.
Rubio’s decision follows the signing of a controversial executive order by former President Donald Trump, which asserts that the U.S. government recognizes only two sexes: male and female. The order mandates that all federal documents, including passports, reflect an individual’s biological sex, which is defined strictly as either male or female.
In an email obtained by The Guardian, Rubio stated: “The policy of the United States is that an individual’s sex is not changeable.” He instructed the State Department to “suspend any application requesting an X sex marker” and to “suspend any application where the applicant is seeking to change their sex marker” to align with the executive order’s definition.
While existing passports with “X” gender markers remain valid, future applications and renewals may encounter significant delays or denials under the new policy. This policy change will primarily affect transgender and non-binary U.S. citizens, who have used the “X” option as a way to reflect their gender identity more accurately.
Legislation Reflects Broader Anti-Trans Movement
The policy comes as part of the broader legislative push led by the Trump administration to limit recognition of gender diversity. The executive order, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” requires that identification documents, including passports and visas, display a person’s biological sex as either male or female. The order’s language includes definitions of “male” and “female” that are based solely on reproductive biology, with “female” described as someone who produces the larger reproductive cell (egg), and “male” as someone who produces the smaller reproductive cell (sperm).
However, this language has been widely criticized by medical professionals and transgender advocates, who argue that it fails to account for the complexities of sex and gender identity. U.S. Representative Sarah McBride, the first openly transgender state legislator in the U.S., pointed out a glaring flaw in the executive order’s wording.
Speaking with The Independent, McBride, who is transgender, humorously quipped, “Trump just declared everyone a woman from conception based on the language of the executive order.” McBride’s comment highlights the scientific inaccuracy of the order’s biological definitions, as embryos, regardless of their sex chromosomes, initially develop along female biological pathways until later differentiation occurs.
Impact on Non-Binary Individuals
The new policy will have a direct impact on non-binary individuals, a group that has faced increasing challenges in gaining official recognition for their gender identity. According to estimates from the Williams Institute at UCLA’s School of Law, approximately 16,700 non-binary people in the U.S. request a passport with an “X” gender marker each year. This represents 1.4% of the non-binary population, which is estimated to include around 1.2 million adults in the United States.
Non-binary individuals, who do not identify strictly as male or female, often face significant barriers when it comes to official documentation. The “X” marker, introduced in 2021 as a gender-neutral option on U.S. passports, was seen as a step toward greater inclusivity and recognition of gender diversity. However, with Rubio’s directive, many non-binary Americans could now be forced to choose between inaccurately identifying as male or female or risking having no gender marker at all on their passport.
The Legal and Social Backlash
The move has drawn sharp criticism from LGBTQ+ advocates and legal experts who argue that it is a direct violation of transgender rights and sets back progress on gender inclusivity. Experts have also pointed out that this policy contradicts the principles of gender autonomy and self-identification that have been increasingly recognized by legal systems around the world.
“This policy ignores the lived realities of millions of transgender and non-binary people,” said one advocacy group. “It undermines the right to self-identify and could have serious consequences for those trying to travel, access healthcare, or engage in any activity where legal documents are required.”
As of now, the decision to suspend applications for passports with “X” gender markers is likely to face legal challenges. Advocates have promised to fight the policy in court, arguing that it is discriminatory and unconstitutional. The move also aligns with other actions taken by the Trump administration to roll back protections for transgender individuals, including efforts to ban transgender people from serving in the military and efforts to restrict access to gender-affirming healthcare.
For now, the future of gender markers on U.S. passports remains uncertain. While existing passports with the “X” marker remain valid, those who wish to renew their passports or apply for new ones may find themselves facing bureaucratic hurdles or forced to make an uncomfortable choice between male and female categories.
As the U.S. continues to debate issues of gender identity, equality, and legal recognition, the implications of this policy will likely extend far beyond the realm of passport applications. For many in the transgender and non-binary communities, the latest move by Secretary Rubio represents a significant setback in the ongoing fight for gender recognition and inclusivity.
With legal challenges on the horizon, the outcome of this policy change may ultimately depend on the courts, but for now, advocates are determined to push back against what they see as a direct attack on the rights of transgender and non-binary Americans.
