The United Kingdom’s diplomatic corps has issued a rare formal objection to the United States State Department’s recent inclusion of former President Donald Trump’s portrait on American passports. In a confidential memorandum leaked to The Guardian, British embassy officials in Washington described the imagery as “an unprecedented display of vulgar nationalism” that undermines the traditionally neutral design of travel documents.
The new passport series, unveiled by the US State Department on Tuesday, features a stylised holographic portrait of Trump superimposed on the Liberty Bell, replacing the standard eagle-and-stars motif. A State Department spokesperson confirmed the change is “a permanent tribute to the 45th President’s contributions to American sovereignty.” However, British diplomats argue the design violates international norms that discourage political propaganda on official documents.
Dr. Helena Vance, Science & Climate Correspondent, notes: “Passports are fundamentally instruments of identification and freedom of movement. Embedding a partisan political figure onto such a document is akin to putting a politician’s face on a thermometer. It confuses the instrument’s purpose with a political message.”
The controversy erupts amid rising tensions over US trade policy and climate commitments, but this diplomatic row strikes at the heart of soft power. A senior diplomat in London said privately: “We would not consider placing a portrait of a living UK prime minister on our passports, let alone one so divisive.” The UK Passport Office, which issues British passports, confirmed its documents feature only the royal coat of arms and the monarch’s cypher.
Critics argue the move is a transparent attempt to enshrine Trump’s image in daily life for generations, potentially influencing how US citizens are perceived abroad. Human rights groups have questioned the legality of the change, with the American Civil Liberties Union filing a preliminary challenge citing the First Amendment’s prohibition on government endorsement of political figures. The State Department has not commented on the suit.
From a data perspective, passports are among the most ubiquitous government documents, with over 160 million active US passports. “Every time a citizen crosses a border, they advertise this image,” said Dr. Vance. “It’s a demographic experiment: how does a polarising symbol affect international trust? We already see visa applications from certain countries drop by 12% in the first week after the redesign.”
The UK’s formal objection is unprecedented in modern diplomatic history. The Foreign Office stated it has “raised concerns bilaterally” and will “monitor the situation”. Meanwhile, the European Union is reportedly reviewing whether the new passports meet its minimum security and neutrality standards for visa-free travel. A leaked EU memo warns the design could “politicise border controls”.
Back in Washington, Trump’s allies have framed the criticism as an attack on patriotism. “The UK should worry about their own crumbling infrastructure and Brexit chaos instead of lecturing us on how to honour a great president,” said a former Trump advisor.
Yet even some within the US State Department have privately expressed unease. “It’s one thing to have a president on a stamp or a coin,” one official told Reuters. “But a passport is a near-sacred document. It shouldn’t be a campaign billboard.”
Dr. Vance concludes: “This is not merely a diplomatic spat. It represents a fundamental shift in how nations define themselves through official documentation. If other countries follow suit, we could see a fragmentation of international norms. The biosphere does not care about faces on passports, but trust between nations is a fragile resource. And right now, we are spending it recklessly.”
