In a landmark decision that has already sparked widespread debate across the United States and internationally, the United States Supreme Court has officially approved President Donald Trump’s policy that restricts U.S. passports to only two gender options: male and female. This ruling marks a significant shift from the policies introduced under the Biden administration, which allowed for a non-binary “X” option on passports, enabling Americans to self-identify their gender without requiring medical documentation or proof of transition.
The decision, delivered on November 6, 2025, by the Court’s conservative majority, overturns a previous injunction that had blocked the Trump-era policy from being enforced. With a 6 to 3 vote, the justices sided with the administration, arguing that passport gender designation is a matter of federal identification standards and does not violate constitutional protections related to equal treatment. The ruling empowers the government to issue passports reflecting only the gender assigned at birth, thereby removing the non-binary option implemented in the previous administration.
According to the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, the designation of “M” or “F” on passports is intended to maintain consistency and accuracy in official government documentation. The Court emphasized that this policy is a neutral administrative standard, rather than a measure aimed at discriminating against any group. Supporters of the decision have praised the ruling, describing it as a reaffirmation of biological reality and federal administrative clarity, arguing that passports should align strictly with birth certificates to prevent confusion in international travel and identification processes.
However, the decision has generated significant criticism from civil rights groups and LGBTQ+ advocates. The three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—issued a strongly worded dissent, warning that restricting passports to binary gender markers could exacerbate discrimination against transgender and non-binary individuals, cause psychological distress, and limit recognition of diverse gender identities. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have described the ruling as a regressive step that undermines dignity, inclusion, and the recognition of gender diversity in American society.
The practical implications of this ruling are immediate: all new or renewed U.S. passports must now reflect either “M” or “F,” corresponding to the individual’s birth certificate. Americans who previously held passports with a non-binary “X” marker may be required to obtain a new passport under the revised policy. While the Supreme Court’s decision sets a nationwide precedent, lower courts may continue to hear legal challenges regarding the policy, particularly in cases where individuals claim the policy violates civil rights or federal anti-discrimination laws.
The ruling has already prompted a wide array of reactions on social media, with supporters emphasizing administrative clarity and opponents warning of social harm. The debate highlights the ongoing tension between federal administrative regulations and evolving social understanding of gender identity in the United States. Legal experts note that this decision could influence similar policies in other federal documentation systems, potentially affecting driver’s licenses, Social Security records, and other official identification measures in the coming years.
As this landmark ruling takes effect, U.S. citizens, advocacy organizations, and legal observers will be closely monitoring its implementation and any subsequent legal challenges, with the Supreme Court’s conservative majority reinforcing a vision of federal identification aligned strictly with birth-assigned gender markers, while critics continue to advocate for inclusive recognition of non-binary and transgender identities across official documentation.