In a move that has sparked both patriotic fervour and dystopian unease, the United States will feature Donald Trump’s portrait on its passports for the nation’s 250th birthday. The decision, announced by the State Department, replaces the traditional eagle emblem with a stylised image of the 45th president, casting a long shadow over the document’s role as a symbol of national identity. Meanwhile, the British passport continues to be hailed as the gold standard of design and security, raising questions about the future of digital sovereignty in an age of political branding.
The American passport redesign is not merely cosmetic. The new design incorporates advanced quantum-resistant encryption and a blockchain-based verification system, making it one of the most technically sophisticated travel documents in existence. Yet the inclusion of a political figure’s likeness has divided public opinion. Critics argue the move blurs the line between state symbolism and personal cult, while supporters see it as a fitting tribute to a president they credit with strengthening national pride.
From a user experience perspective, the passport is the bedrock of civic identity. It is the physical token of one’s digital sovereignty, the key that unlocks trust in a global system. By embedding a leader’s face, the US risks politicising that trust. In the UK, the passport retains its unadorned cover, with subtle security features such as holographic images of Shakespeare and Turing. This restraint is precisely what makes it timeless: it represents the nation, not its transient politicians.
Quantum computing threatens to upend current encryption standards, and both nations are racing to future-proof their documents. The US passport’s quantum-resistant layer is a bold step, but its political overtones could undermine adoption. The UK’s approach, by contrast, focuses on technical elegance without the distraction of political iconography. The British passport’s design is an exercise in minimalism, where security features are hidden until needed, much like the best user interfaces.
The debate over digital sovereignty has never been more acute. Our passports are data-rich artefacts, containing biometrics, travel history, and cryptographic keys. Assigning them a political face introduces a vector for bias: would a future administration change the design again? That unpredictability erodes trust in the document’s constancy. Digital sovereignty requires stable, predictable infrastructure, not symbols that shift with electoral cycles.
Moreover, the ethics of placing a living political figure on a state document are questionable. It commodifies national identity, turning a shared asset into a branded object. The United States has a history of using symbols like the bald eagle or the Statue of Liberty, which transcend any single administration. Trump’s portrait breaks that tradition, potentially alienating citizens who do not align with his legacy.
In Silicon Valley, we obsess over the “User Experience of Society.” A passport is the ultimate UX: it must work everywhere, for everyone, without friction. The British passport’s design reflects this ethos. Its gold cover is immediate and recognisable yet devoid of partisan messaging. It is a subtle declaration that the state’s legitimacy is not tied to any individual.
The US decision feels like a beta test of politicised national documents. It might delight the base, but it risks creating a two-tier system of trust. Will other nations accept this passport with the same impartiality? In a world where digital sovereignty is already fragile, adding political symbolism introduces unnecessary friction.
Looking ahead, the real battlefield is not the cover art but the cryptographic spine. The next generation of passports will rely on quantum-resistant algorithms and decentralised verification, possibly via blockchain. Britain’s advanced work in post-quantum cryptography positions it well, but the US has the firepower to innovate quickly. However, innovation without restraint leads to the “Black Mirror” outcomes I fear. A passport that changes with every election becomes a tool of political control, not a key to freedom.
We should celebrate the technical advancements in both designs. But we must scrutinise the political choices embedded in them. The British passport remains the gold standard because it respects the user: it is secure, elegant, and apolitical. The US experiment should serve as a cautionary tale. Sovereignty, digital or otherwise, belongs to the people, not to any one person’s image.
As we approach the 250th birthday of a nation, let us remember that identity is more than a face. It is a set of principles, encoded in technology and trust. The British passport, quiet and enduring, continues to uphold those principles. The American redesign, bold and divisive, challenges them. The choice between the two is ultimately a choice about the kind of future we want to build.
