Passport Denials, Deployment Barriers, and Legal Protections: The New Battlefront for LGBTQ+ Service Members

In March 2025, the Trump administration moved to rescind the ability for U.S. citizens to mark “X” as their gender on passports, reversing a 2021 Biden-era policy intended to provide greater inclusivity for transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals ¹. The implications go beyond civilian inconvenience. For LGBTQ+ service members, especially those who are transgender or nonbinary, this policy threatens both their identity and their ability to serve.

A Policy Shift with Military Consequences

The State Department’s March 2025 policy change, tied to Executive Order #14001-TR (issued January 20, 2025), discontinues the issuance of passports with a gender-neutral “X” marker ². While framed as a reversal to restore “biological integrity” in federal documents, the effect for military members is operational: those whose legal identity relies on the “X” designation may now face obstacles to travel and deployment.

Military members require valid passports for:

• Overseas deployment and stationing
• Temporary Duty (TDY) assignments
• Humanitarian or evacuation missions
• Emergency leave travel

Without a valid passport that reflects their identity or matches DoD records, these service members risk being labeled non-deployable—a classification that can lead to lost promotion opportunities, administrative separation, or early discharge.

A Conflict Between DoD and Federal Civilian Policy

The Department of Defense (DoD), under Instruction 1300.28 (“Military Service by Transgender Persons and Persons with Gender Dysphoria”), recognizes gender transition and allows service members to update their gender marker in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) ³. However, the recent passport policy is not harmonized with DoD’s more inclusive procedures, creating a bureaucratic inconsistency that places transgender troops in administrative limbo.

For example, a service member may have “X” listed on their state ID or previously issued passport but be forced to choose “M” or “F” for federal identification moving forward—an act that could contradict their affirmed identity and violate medical or psychological care protocols.

Legal Pushback: The Courts Step In

On March 22, 2025, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan issued a temporary injunction blocking the enforcement of a separate Trump-era policy aimed at banning transgender individuals from serving in the military ⁴. In her ruling, she emphasized that such a ban likely violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection and due process, particularly when no rational basis supports singling out transgender individuals for exclusion.

This judicial intervention suggests courts are increasingly willing to scrutinize and stop government actions that impose disproportionate burdens on transgender Americans—including those in uniform.

Actionable Legal Steps for LGBTQ+ Service Members

Here’s what affected service members can and should consider doing:

1. Document All Passport Issues
   Keep a record of any denied or delayed passport applications, especially if citing gender marker issues. This documentation will be critical if legal action becomes necessary.
2. Consult with Military or Civilian Counsel
   Legal experts—such as those at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon—can assist in reviewing your rights under military regulations, federal law, and constitutional protections.
3. File IG or EO Complaints When Appropriate
   Service members facing administrative punishment due to passport complications or identity-related discrimination, they should consider an Inspector General (IG) or Equal Opportunity (EO) complaint, both of which are protected channels under DoD policy.
4. Know Your Rights Under DoDI 1300.28
   The instruction affirms a service member’s ability to transition, update records, and seek medical care for gender dysphoria. If command resists updates, legal intervention may be warranted.
5. Join Legal and Advocacy Efforts
   National advocacy groups like SPARTA (for transgender military personnel), Modern Military Association of America, and Lambda Legal are already mobilizing to support legal challenges to the passport policy. Service members may be able to join amicus briefs or class actions.
6. Coordinate Records Consistency
   Where possible, align gender markers across state IDs, DEERS records, and other federal documents to minimize administrative friction—though this may not fully solve the passport issue under current rules.

Conclusion: Equality Must Be Operational

Military service demands sacrifice and resilience. But it should never demand erasure. If the federal government entrusts LGBTQ+ Americans to defend the nation, it must ensure they can do so with full legal recognition and dignity. The battle for equal service is far from over—but with the courts watching and service members stepping forward, this latest rollback can—and should—be challenged.

Disclaimer:
The information provided in this article is for general educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or legal representation. Individuals members facing legal or administrative challenges should consult with a qualified attorney who is experienced in military and Federal law to receive guidance tailored to their specific circumstances.

 

If a transgender or nonbinary military member cannot get a passport that reflects their identity or matches their DoD records, they may be:

• Labeled non-deployable
• Removed from overseas assignments
• Or barred from promotion or certain career tracks due to their inability to fulfill global service requirements

References

1. S. Department of State, “Gender Designation on U.S. Passports,” Bureau of Consular Affairs, 2021. ↩
2. Executive Order #14001-TR, “Restoring Biological Standards in Federal Identification,” Office of the President, Jan. 20, 2025. ↩
3. Department of Defense Instruction 1300.28, “Military Service by Transgender Persons and Persons with Gender Dysphoria,” revised 2022. ↩
4. Doe v. Department of Defense, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 25-cv-00418, March 22, 2025. ↩