Passports with 'X' sex markers will be valid until they expire or are renewed, State Department says
The State Department issued new guidance on passports with 'X' sex markers and applications that request to change a passport sex marker, according to a memo reviewed by NBC News.
The new guidance comes after the State Department suspended all applications for passports and CRBAs, which are birth records for U.S. citizens born abroad, that request an 'X' sex marker or a sex marker change, following a memo last month from Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
The policy change resulted in widespread confusion, particularly among the transgender community, about whether passports with an 'X' sex marker would be valid for international travel or even confiscated.
According to the new memo, passports and Consular Report of Birth Abroad records that have already been issued with an 'X' sex marker are valid until replaced or expired. Travelers who were issued passports with 'X' markers within the last year can request to replace them at no cost for passports with a binary 'F' or 'M' sex marker by submitting a correction form.
The guidance applies to all in-progress passport applications and any future applications received as of last Friday, the memo states.
Under the new guidance, in-process applications requesting an 'X' sex marker will be changed to male or female using a review of all available evidence establishing sex assigned at birth, such as a birth certificate, government-issued ID or prior passport record, according to the memo.
If the evidence submitted with the application doesn't sufficiently establish the applicant's sex assigned at birth — because, for example, their documentation does not show their birth sex, shows conflicting information regarding their birth sex, only lists an 'X' marker or includes a designation like intersex — the application must be suspended, the memo states.
In those cases, the State Department will send a form requesting more information to determine the applicant's sex assigned at birth. If the applicant still can't establish their birth sex after providing more information, their application would continue to be suspended. The memo directs employees reviewing applications to carefully review conflicting information and closely consider issuance dates of vital records and any amendments to them.
The State Department will use a similar process for passports and CRBAs requesting a sex marker change to 'M' or 'F,' using a prior passport record or documentation issued closest to an applicant's birth to establish their sex assigned at birth, according to the memo. In those cases, applicants would receive a notice to inform them of a change in the biographical data on their new passport, the memo states.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Friday against the State Department's passport policy on behalf of seven people who are trans or intersex, meaning they were born with physical traits that don't fit typical definitions for male or female categories. The suit argues that the policy discriminates against the plaintiffs based on sex and violates their constitutional rights to privacy, free speech and travel.
The State Department did not immediately return a request for additional comment.
The changes to passport policies came as a result of an executive order President Donald Trump signed on the first day of his presidency declaring that the U.S. government will recognize only two sexes, male and female, and that 'these sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.'
The executive order regarding sex is among those Trump signed that seek to restrict transgender rights. Trump also signed executive orders that aim to prohibit trans people from enlisting and serving openly in the military, restrict access to transition-related care for minors and bar trans women from competing on women's sports teams.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
New GOP bill would protect AI companies from lawsuits if they offer transparency
Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., is introducing legislation Thursday that would shield artificial intelligence developers from an array of civil liability lawsuits provided they meet certain disclosure requirements. Lummis' bill, the Responsible Innovation and Safe Expertise Act, seeks to clarify that doctors, lawyers, financial advisers, engineers and other professionals who use AI programs in their decision-making retain legal liability for any errors they make — so long as AI developers publicly disclose how their systems work. 'This legislation doesn't create blanket immunity for AI — in fact, it requires AI developers to publicly disclose model specifications so professionals can make informed decisions about the AI tools they choose to utilize,' Lummis, a member of the Commerce Committee, said in a statement first shared with NBC News. 'It also means that licensed professionals are ultimately responsible for the advice and decisions they make. This is smart policy for the digital age that protects innovation, demands transparency, and puts professionals and their clients first.' Lummis' office touted the bill as the first piece of federal legislation that offers clear guidelines for AI liability in a professional context. The measure would not govern liability for other AI elements, such as self-driving vehicles, and it would not provide immunity when AI developers act recklessly or willfully engage in misconduct. 'AI is transforming industries — medicine, law, engineering, finance — and becoming embedded in professional tools that shape critical decisions,' her office said in a release. 'But outdated liability rules discourage innovation, exposing developers to unbounded legal risk even when trained professionals are using these tools.' Exactly who is liable when AI is used in sensitive medical, legal or financial situations is a bit of a gray area, with some states seeking to enact their own standards. The House-passed 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' which is advancing through Congress and supported by President Donald Trump, includes a provision that would ban states from enacting any AI regulations for 10 years. Senate Republicans last week proposed changing the provision to instead block federal funding for broadband projects to states that regulate AI. Both Democratic and Republican state officials have criticized the effort to prohibit state-level regulations over the next decade, while AI executives have argued that varying state laws would stifle industry growth when the United States is in stiff competition with countries like China.
NBC News
3 hours ago
- NBC News
Families file suit challenging Arkansas law that requires Ten Commandments be posted in classrooms
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Seven Arkansas families filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging an upcoming state requirement that public school classrooms have posted copies of the Ten Commandments, saying the new law will violate their constitutional rights. The federal lawsuit challenges a measure Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed into law earlier this year, similar to a requirement enacted by Louisiana and one that Texas' governor has said he'll sign. The Arkansas law takes effect in August and requires the Ten Commandments to be prominently displayed in public school classrooms and libraries. "Permanently posting the Ten Commandments in every classroom and library — rendering them unavoidable — unconstitutionally pressures students into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state's favored religious scripture," the lawsuit said. The suit was filed on behalf of the families by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The lawsuit names four school districts in northwest Arkansas — Fayetteville, Bentonville, Siloam Springs and Springdale — as defendants. A spokesperson for Fayetteville schools said the district would not comment on pending litigation, while the other three districts did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Attorney General Tim Griffin said his office was reviewing the lawsuit and considering options. Attorneys for the families, who are Jewish, Unitarian Universalist or nonreligious, said they planned to ask the federal judge in Fayetteville for a preliminary injunction blocking the law's enforcement. The attorneys say the law violates longstanding Supreme Court precedent and the families' First Amendment rights. "By imposing a Christian-centric translation of the Ten Commandments on our children for nearly every hour of every day of their public-school education, this law will infringe on our rights as parents and create an unwelcoming and religiously coercive school environment for our children," Samantha Stinson, one of the plaintiffs, said in a news release. Louisiana was the first state to enact such a requirement, and a federal judge blocked the measure before it was to take effect Jan 1. Proponents of Louisiana's law say that ruling only applies to the five school boards listed in the suit, but The Associated Press is unaware of any posters being displayed in schools as the litigation continues.
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
Is Israel preparing to strike Iran?
While much of the Western debate remains trapped in tired slogans and false moral narratives, events on the ground in the Middle East have taken a decisive turn. In the past 24 hours, U.S. embassies have begun evacuating non-essential staff. Military dependents are being authorised to leave key bases. Multiple reports say U.S. officials have been told Israel is fully ready to launch an operation against Iran if required, and Washington expects possible Iranian retaliation on American sites in Iraq. The U.S. anticipates that Iranian retaliation against U.S. assets in Iraq could follow any Israeli strike The trigger is Iran's growing stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium, its preparations for potential retaliation against any Israeli strike, and the breakdown of progress in nuclear talks. Meanwhile, in Gaza, as Western commentators obsess over supposed Israeli crimes, Hamas deliberately attacked a convoy of humanitarian aid workers, killing and injuring those delivering life-saving relief, according to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. The region is moving to dangerous thresholds while too many in the West cling to delusional narratives and moral theatre that can no longer disguise the facts. U.S. embassies across the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and North Africa have been ordered to convene emergency action committees and report their risk mitigation measures to Washington. This directive, as reported by the Washington Post, led to Secretary of State Marco Rubio's decision on Wednesday to authorise the departure of nonessential personnel in Iraq. 'We are constantly assessing the appropriate personnel posture at all our embassies,' a State Department official said. 'Based on our latest analysis, we decided to reduce the footprint of our mission in Iraq.' A senior diplomat in the region put the mood in stark terms: 'We are watching and worried. We think it's more serious than any other time in the past.' Military preparations are also accelerating. Naval Support Activity Bahrain, home to U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, has been placed on high alert. In Iraq's Al-Anbar province, increased military air activity has been observed. The U.S. anticipates that Iranian retaliation against U.S. assets in Iraq could follow any Israeli strike. This concern contributed to Washington's decision to advise some Americans to leave the region earlier on Wednesday. Iran's posture is evolving in parallel. The New York Times reports that Iranian military and government officials have already met to discuss their response to a potential Israeli strike. A senior Iranian official told the paper that Tehran has prepared a response plan involving an immediate counterstrike on Israel with hundreds of ballistic missiles. The catalyst behind these developments remains Iran's advancing nuclear programme. According to a recent confidential IAEA report cited by Reuters, Iran has amassed about 408.6 kg of uranium enriched to 60 per cent, a quantity sufficient for nearly one nuclear weapon if further refined. Britain, France and Germany, known as the E3, have signalled they are ready to trigger UN 'snapback' provisions to reapply sanctions on Iran if its nuclear programme continues unchecked, with some Western diplomats suggesting such action could come as early as August. Diplomatic efforts continue, but seem increasingly futile. A sixth round of direct talks between U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is scheduled for the coming days. Two U.S. officials confirmed to CBS News that Witkoff still plans to attend. Yet Witkoff's public remarks last night underscore the gravity of the challenge. Speaking at a United Hatzalah event, he said: 'A nuclear Iran represents an existential threat to Israel as does an Iran with a large amount of missiles. That is as big an existential threat as the nuclear threat. And this is an existential threat to the United States and the free world and the entire GCC. We must stand resolute and united against this danger and ensure that Iran never attains the means to achieve its deadly ambitions no matter what the cost.' Markets have responded sharply. Oil prices rose more than 4 per cent on Wednesday, reaching their highest level in two months, amid fears that Persian Gulf shipping lanes could be affected by military escalation. Alongside these developments, a separate gruesome attack demands clear moral response. On Wednesday night at approximately 10 p.m. local time, a bus carrying over two dozen members of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation team (local Palestinian aid workers working alongside the U.S. GHF team) was attacked by Hamas terrorists as it travelled to a distribution centre west of Khan Younis. The GHF's statement leaves no doubt: 'At least five fatalities, multiple injuries, and fear that some of our team members may have been taken hostage. We condemn this heinous and deliberate attack in the strongest possible terms.' The GHF reports that Hamas had openly threatened its team and the civilians they serve in recent days, while Western news outlets ran cover for them by constantly suggesting Israel was shooting at civilians seeking aid. The attack represents a direct assault on humanitarian principles and the integrity of civil society. 'These were aid workers,' the GHF statement continues, 'Humanitarians. Fathers, brothers, sons, and friends, who were risking their lives every day to help others.' When Israel mistakenly killed World Central Kitchen aid workers after terrorists knowingly endangered them, the world reacted with outrage. Now we will see whether politicians and the media speak out on this deliberate targeting of aid workers by Hamas. Until now, Hamas's threats against the humanitarian efforts were met with silence from those who should have condemned them. The UK was busy sanctioning Israeli cabinet ministers. That silence must end, with the international community unequivocally denouncing Hamas for this atrocity. Despite these developments in the Gaza Strip and across the entire region, the complex humanitarian effort to feed Gaza's citizens continues, as do the diplomatic efforts to address Iran's nuclear programme – even as military preparations advance on multiple fronts, and the possibility of kidnapped American humanitarian workers is being investigated. There is a hard reality that many in the West have chosen not to confront. From Paris, London, and Ottawa to the BBC and other Western media outlets, public debate has too often been trapped in abstract talking points: the fantasy of a viable Palestinian state led by terrorist factions, the ritualised condemnation of Israel, and the refusal to acknowledge the scale of Iranian and Hamas aggression. But events on the ground are indifferent to such illusions. Iran's nuclear and missile posture is advancing. Hamas is murdering aid workers. The region is moving toward dangerous thresholds while too many in the West cling to a moral fable of putative Israeli bloodlust and deliberate starvation – a narrative that no longer fits the facts. The question now is whether Western leaders are prepared to face this reality with the clarity and resolve it demands, or whether they will persist in narratives that leave them powerless as others reshape the strategic landscape of the Middle East.
