A federal judge in Massachusetts is pressing the Trump administration to explain its decision to eliminate the “X” gender marker from U.S. passports and other official documents, demanding to know what data or reasoning justified the return to biologically defined male and female categories.
Judge Julia Kobick questioned the Department of Justice about whether any scientific studies or alternative viewpoints were reviewed before the State Department issued guidance ending the issuance of passports and birth documents with a non-binary “X” designation. “You’ve got to give me something, or else I’ll assume there’s nothing,” she said, according to Bloomberg Law.
The legal challenge was filed by a group of transgender-identifying plaintiffs, with representation from the ACLU and law firm Covington & Burling. They argue the Trump policy endangers their safety by forcing them to “out” themselves at borders and travel checkpoints, and they’re seeking a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement while the case plays out.
At the center of the dispute is President Trump’s executive order issued in January titled Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government. The order states plainly: “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.”
Under that directive, the State Department has stopped issuing documents with any gender marker other than “M” or “F,” and those markers must match the applicant’s biological sex at birth.
Department of Justice attorney Benjamin Takemoto defended the policy in court, saying, “The president has been granted the authority by Congress to set these rules and procedures and has done so here.” He added that Trump was not required to follow the lengthy “notice-and-comment” rulemaking process when issuing the executive order.
The judge’s remarks suggest she may be leaning toward intervening in the policy, potentially placing her among a growing list of federal judges attempting to override Trump’s executive actions.
Public reaction to the change has been swift from LGBTQ activists and high-profile celebrities. According to Breitbart, Euphoria star Hunter Schafer recently went public about her passport being altered to reflect her biological sex, rather than her transgender identity. Others have joined the chorus, accusing Trump of trying to “erase” trans Americans.
In a statement released by the ACLU, plaintiff Ashton Orr, a transgender-identifying man from West Virginia, said, “This is about controlling the lives and identities of transgender people. The government is forcing us to either misrepresent who we are or expose ourselves to discrimination and danger.”
But the Trump administration has made clear it sees this as part of a broader move to roll back the Biden-era expansion of gender ideology throughout federal agencies. Secretary of State Robert O’Brien said earlier this year, “Passports are not social statements. They are legal documents. The law is clear: there are two sexes, and the federal government is returning to that legal and biological standard.”
The administration has also issued similar orders applying to visas, Global Entry cards, and other forms of federal ID, and Attorney General Pam Bondi has signaled that noncompliance with these policies could carry criminal penalties for government officials.
While activists decry the policy as a step backward, polls show strong public support for restoring clarity and consistency to federal documents—especially when it comes to legal identity, travel security, and international recognition.
As the case moves forward, it could become a flashpoint in the ongoing legal war over Trump’s reversal of left-wing social engineering embedded in the federal bureaucracy.
