This commentary is by Rep. Troy Headrick, I-Burlington.
Recently, during floor debate on S.123, I offered an amendment that would have created an eight-year renewal option for Vermont-issued identification cards. It was designed to provide longer-term stability and protection for Vermonters, especially those who are trans and nonbinary.
The structure was simple and sound, the amendment was revenue neutral, included safeguards to stabilize DMV revenue over time, and aligned with Vermont’s proud policy of allowing self-attestation of gender identity.
I also withdrew the amendment.
To some, that may have seemed abrupt or puzzling. But the choice was deliberate. While I remain convinced that the amendment represents strong policy, I knew that insisting on a vote could delay passage of the underlying bill that also includes a critical early renewal provision that trans and nonbinary Vermonters need immediately. Preserving that core protection became the priority.
Still, we need to talk about what this moment revealed.
Vermont leads in recognizing gender identity, but we do so within a larger federal system. The Trump administration’s recent executive order directs federal agencies to define sex based on immutable biology at conception. This quietly but powerfully undermines existing ID frameworks.
A Vermont-issued ID that reflects a person’s affirmed gender could now be questioned or rejected by the Transportation Security Administration, passport agencies or other federal entities. That’s not hypothetical. It’s the creeping return of exclusion via administrative means.
My amendment would have given Vermonters a shield with an eight-year window of bureaucratic peace. Time to travel, apply for jobs, enroll in benefits or simply move through the world without being asked to re-prove who they are.
And yet, too few in the chamber seemed ready to engage with that reality. The concerns raised weren’t rooted in hostility, but they were rooted in and exposed a blind spot. Some viewed the eight-year renewal as a bonus convenience, not a policy with protective power. Others were uncomfortable with the idea of setting up a reserve fund, despite the clear fiscal logic behind it.
What concerns me most isn’t that the amendment was withdrawn, but that too few of my colleagues recognized what it actually offered. For those of us who’ve never had our identity questioned at airport security or challenged by a federal agency, an eight-year ID renewal might sound like a simple convenience. But for trans and nonbinary Vermonters, many of whom aren’t in the room when we draft these policies, it would mean eight years of peace of mind, safety and stability.
When we dismiss policy changes as nonessential because they seem nonessential to us, we risk missing real opportunities to protect those who are most at risk. That’s a policy failure. Specifically it’s a failure to act on our stated commitment to keeping equity at the center of our legislative processes.
This is not the end of the conversation. The issue will return, as it must. In the meantime, I hope this moment serves as a reminder that equity requires more than good intentions. It requires an ability to see the implications of our policy through the eyes of those who are most affected by it.
Because dignity shouldn’t expire every four years.
