By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A group led by Democratic senators has urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to halt plans for a limited-edition U.S. passport featuring President Donald Trump’s likeness. The senators argue that such an action would be anti-democratic and politicize a document central to national identity, potentially incurring wasteful taxpayer costs. These passports, intended to commemorate the nation’s 250th anniversary, are part of a broader trend of the Trump administration placing his image on various national symbols and currency.
Read the original article here
A group of Democratic senators has voiced strong opposition to the idea of Donald Trump’s face appearing on U.S. passports, conveying their sentiments to Senator Marco Rubio. This sentiment stems from concerns that such an action would be a grotesque and anti-American display, reflecting a dictatorial tendency to plaster the former president’s image everywhere. The senators, including Chris Van Hollen, Jacky Rosen, Tim Kaine, and Angus King, who caucuses with Democrats, have articulated their disagreement with this notion, emphasizing the inappropriateness of having a mugshot, specifically, on official identification for international travel.
The core of the argument against featuring Trump’s face on passports rests on the idea that it would turn American travelers into potential targets of ridicule and harm abroad. The choice of a mugshot photo, in particular, is seen as deeply problematic and embarrassing, turning a document meant for official identification into a potential liability when crossing international borders. It’s viewed as an act of self-aggrandizement and a departure from the dignity expected of such a document, with some suggesting it would be akin to presenting oneself with a “target on your back.”
Furthermore, the senators appear to be concerned about the precedent this would set and the broader implications for American democracy. The idea that a former president’s image, especially one captured in a mugshot, would be officially recognized on passports is perceived as a sign of a nation heading towards a less democratic and more personality-driven governance. This concern is amplified by the absence of any Republican signatories on the letter to Rubio, suggesting a partisan divide on the issue and a perceived lack of accountability from within the Republican party regarding Trump’s actions.
The discussion around this issue also touches upon the perceived desperation of some to normalize or even celebrate Trump’s image in public life, including on items like toilet paper or even hypothetical currency. The comparison to historical authoritarian figures who sought to have their likenesses ubiquitously displayed is not far from the surface of these critiques. The senators’ letter, regardless of its ultimate impact, is seen by some as a symbolic gesture to push back against what they view as a disturbing trend of “Trumpification” of American institutions and symbols.
The sentiment that Trump’s face belongs on a wanted poster, rather than an official document, is a recurring theme. The idea of a mugshot on a passport is particularly galling to many, especially when considering the upcoming 250th anniversary of the United States. It’s viewed as an affront to the nation’s history and a sign of profound political division. The possibility of altering or defacing such a passport, or the emergence of secondary markets for “special edition” passport covers to obscure the image, further highlights the deep aversion some feel towards this prospect.
The contrast drawn between how Republicans might react to a similar proposal involving a Democratic president, such as Biden or Obama, underscores a perceived hypocrisy. Critics suggest that the Republican party’s current stance, characterized as a “cult,” has amplified their pre-existing tendencies towards hypocrisy, especially concerning Trump. The argument is that Trump’s actions and the potential for his image to be placed on passports are met with far less opposition from within his party than similar actions by other presidents would have been.
Ultimately, the opposition from these Democratic senators to Trump’s face appearing on U.S. passports is a multifaceted protest. It’s a stand against what they see as inappropriate vanity, a potential security risk for American travelers, and a symptom of a troubling erosion of democratic norms. The message is clear: the official seal of the United States, as represented by its passports, should not bear the image of any individual, especially not one associated with controversy and legal challenges, in a manner that suggests endorsement or personal branding.