Trump Passport Policy Halted: US Judge Blocks Rule Targeting Transgender Americans

Trump Passport Policy Halted: Judge Blocks Controversial Executive Order

In a landmark ruling, a federal judge in Boston has halted the Trump passport policy that sought to restrict transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals from obtaining passports that align with their gender identity. The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick, significantly expands a previous injunction and deals a major blow to the Trump administration’s efforts to limit gender identity recognition.

The Trump passport policy halted this week had been introduced as part of an executive order signed by Donald Trump in January 2025. The policy mandated that the U.S. State Department issue passports based solely on the applicant’s biological sex at birth, eliminating the option to choose a neutral “X” gender marker or self-identify as male or female.

Why Was the Trump Passport Policy Halted?

Judge Kobick ruled that the Trump administration’s directive likely violated the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by discriminating based on sex and perpetuating prejudicial views against transgender individuals. Her decision to expand the scope of the injunction means it now applies to all transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals in the U.S. who do not currently possess a valid passport, need a renewal, or must update their name or gender marker.

The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed by six plaintiffs, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). These individuals challenged the State Department’s refusal to issue passports that reflect their gender identity or include an “X” gender designation.

Legal Grounds for Halting Trump Passport Policy

In her opinion, Judge Kobick emphasized that the executive order and resulting passport policy classify applicants based on sex, which triggers intermediate scrutiny under constitutional law. This legal standard requires the government to prove that such classifications are substantially related to an important governmental objective.

“The government has failed to meet this standard,” Kobick wrote, adding that the passport policy likely causes “constitutional harm” to thousands of Americans. As a result, the court ruled in favor of expanding the preliminary injunction and officially halted the Trump passport policy for all affected citizens.

Background of the Trump Passport Policy Halted Case

Trump’s executive order, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” was signed on the first day of his return to office in January 2025. It aimed to enforce a strict binary understanding of gender — recognizing only biologically assigned male and female categories.

The State Department, following this directive, updated its policies to require applicants to provide their biological sex at birth. The new rule revoked the right to use an “X” gender marker and eliminated the ability to self-identify one’s sex on passport applications.

Prior to this policy shift, under the Biden administration, passport applicants were allowed to choose between “M”, “F”, or “X” as gender markers, regardless of the sex listed on their birth certificate.

Impact of the Judge’s Ruling

The decision to have the Trump passport policy halted represents a major victory for LGBTQ+ advocacy groups. According to the ACLU, the ruling helps ensure that transgender and nonbinary individuals are not denied fundamental identification documents based on outdated and discriminatory policies.

“This is a critical win for equal rights,” said Li Nowlin-Sohl, a lead attorney with the ACLU. “Being able to travel with identification that accurately reflects one’s gender is not only a matter of dignity, but also of safety and legality.”

The ruling applies to:

• Individuals without a current valid passport
• Those whose passport is expiring within 12 months
• Applicants needing to change their name or gender marker
• Those who lost or had their passport stolen

Arguments by the Trump Administration

Despite the court ruling, representatives of the Trump administration maintain that the passport policy does not violate constitutional rights. They argue that the president has broad discretion over foreign affairs and documentation like passports, and that plaintiffs are still free to travel abroad, even if their documents do not reflect their current gender identity.

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly described the ruling as “yet another attempt by a rogue judge to push radical gender ideology,” signaling the administration’s intent to continue defending the policy in court.

Real-Life Impact: Plaintiffs’ Stories

In the lawsuit, the ACLU outlined several real-life challenges faced by the plaintiffs. One woman received a passport with a male designation despite identifying as female. Others were reluctant to apply, fearing rejection or bureaucratic delays.

One plaintiff sent their passport for renewal and requested a name and gender change in January but had not received an updated passport for months. The delay risked causing them to miss significant family events and professional obligations, such as weddings and conferences.

These stories illustrate the real-world consequences of restrictive identity documentation and further support why the Trump passport policy was halted.

What Comes Next After the Trump Passport Policy Halted Ruling?

While the injunction is a strong blow to the Trump administration’s policy, it is a preliminary ruling. The case will continue in federal court, and final decisions may still be months away.

For now, the halt provides temporary relief to many transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals, allowing them to apply for passports that reflect their true identities.

Advocacy groups are urging the public and policymakers to keep up the pressure to ensure that the ruling becomes permanent and nationally binding.

Conclusion: Trump Passport Policy Halted, Equality Moves Forward

With the Trump passport policy halted, the legal system has once again played a key role in upholding constitutional rights and rejecting discriminatory practices. As the case proceeds, the spotlight remains on how far-reaching and impactful identity-based policies can be on real lives.

This decision not only affirms the rights of the LGBTQ+ community but also reasserts the importance of equal protection under the law. The fight isn’t over — but this ruling is a meaningful step in the right direction.

Read more: HDFC Bank Leadership Shakeup