In April 2026, Colorado quietly passed the most consequential American naming-privacy law in a decade. Almost no one outside the trans-rights advocacy community noticed. As someone who has spent his career working with naming data, I think we should.
The law, signed by Governor Jared Polis and effective July 1, seals name-change records for individuals under 18. The provision was passed primarily to protect transgender minors from public records exposing their dead names — the names assigned at birth that they have since legally changed. California simultaneously passed AB 1084, streamlining the legal process for trans-affirming name updates and reducing the public-record friction that has historically made gender-affirming name changes a slow and exposed process. Both laws are, in immediate terms, civil-rights victories. They are also data events of a kind that the SSA chart era has not seen before.
For the first time, U.S. naming policy is explicitly telling researchers: a portion of legal-name-change behavior, particularly behavior tied to gender identity, will be sealed at the source. That has implications for what naming data can show and what it will be silently failing to show. Most data reporters, and certainly most baby-name pieces, will continue using SSA rankings as if nothing has changed. Mostly that will be fine, because the SSA's rankings are derived from at-birth filings and not subsequent changes. But the situation is more complicated than that, and it is worth understanding why.
What the SSA Chart Actually Measures
The SSA's annual baby-name rankings are derived from Social Security Number applications filed at birth. The number gets assigned, the name gets recorded, and the ranking emerges from the aggregate of those at-birth filings. Subsequent legal name changes — for marriage, for personal preference, for gender affirmation — do not flow back into the SSA chart. The chart is a snapshot of birth-name choices, not a moving record of legal-name updates.
This means, in the most direct sense, that Colorado's seal law does not affect the SSA chart. Births recorded in Colorado in 2026 will be reported to the SSA the same way they were in 2025. The chart is unchanged.
But the data ecosystem around the chart is more porous than that. State-level birth records — used by researchers for granular work that the SSA's federal data does not permit — interact with subsequent name-change records in ways that depend on the state. Name-change petitions are sometimes cross-referenced. Subsequent records are sometimes used to reconstruct cohorts. Researchers studying gender-affirming care, trans demographics, or even just the changing usage of "gender-neutral" names depend on the visibility of subsequent name changes to do their work. Colorado has, as of this summer, made that work harder by design.
The Trans-Coded Name Pool
Naming data has, for years, supported a parallel literature on what some researchers call "trans-coded" names — names that are statistically over-represented among trans individuals' chosen names. The cluster includes names like Aspen, Sage, River, Wren, Phoenix, Oak, Ash, Sky, and Cedar. These are the gender-neutral nature-derived names that have been growing across the past decade.
The interesting feature of these names is that they are growing as both birth names and as later-life chosen names. The SSA chart shows them rising. State-level data on legal name changes also shows them rising, though more in the post-childhood window. Both trajectories are visible in the cleanest data we have because both data streams are, currently, public.
Colorado's law alters the second trajectory. Subsequent name changes by minors will no longer flow into the public record. The trans-coded names that get adopted via name change at age 14, 15, 16 will become invisible by design. The visible record will overweight the at-birth choices and underweight the choose-it-later choices. This biases the dataset in subtle ways that researchers will have to learn to correct for.
What Will Become Harder to Measure
Several specific things will become harder to study in Colorado's data, and similar laws will make these harder elsewhere as they spread:
The pace of trans-coded name adoption among minors. Right now, name-change petitions for gender affirmation produce one of the cleanest signals we have on how trans-coded names spread. Sealing those records mutes the signal.
The geographic distribution of trans-coded name use. Cluster analysis of where trans minors are choosing which names — the Aspen-coded West, the Phoenix-coded Southwest, the Wren-coded Northeast — has been a quiet but useful research thread. Sealing reduces the granularity.
The age distribution of name changes. Knowing whether 14-year-olds and 17-year-olds choose differently from each other is useful for understanding cohort effects. Sealed records shrink the visible ages.
Reverse-coding effects. When a name becomes trans-coded in the public record, some parents avoid it for cisgender children. The avoidance shows up in the SSA chart as deceleration. Sealing the source data of the trans-coding makes the SSA chart's deceleration harder to interpret because the underlying signal is now invisible.
The Researcher's Quiet Loss
This is, on net, a good law. Trans minors deserve protection from exposure of their dead names, full stop. The civil-rights case is unambiguous and the policy outcome is correct. I am not arguing against the law. I am arguing that it has consequences researchers have not fully metabolized, and that the public conversation about naming data should be aware of the new fog.
The deeper point is that all naming data is, in some sense, a frozen photo of a moment. It captures what was visible at the moment of recording, with whatever biases and exclusions the recording mechanism imposed. The SSA chart has always been incomplete — it does not record nicknames, does not include diacritics, does not capture the lived everyday name. But it has been roughly stable in its incompleteness for a hundred years. Colorado's law is the first time a state has explicitly told researchers a category of name behavior will be invisible by statute. The fog has thickened in a specific direction.
Researchers will adapt. Cohort analyses will use proxies. Aggregated state-level data will continue to support some questions. The trans-coded-name literature will keep growing, just with worse data. The fog will not blind us. It will just make the picture grainier.
What This Means for Trends Coverage
For naming-trend coverage in the press, including ours, the Colorado law has practical implications. Future reporting on trans-coded names should acknowledge the data limitations. "Aspen has grown 40% over the past five years" is now a statement about at-birth choices specifically; subsequent adoption among minors is opaque. The numbers we cite will be smaller than the underlying truth, in ways that are systematically biased toward parents' choices and away from individuals' own choices.
Some researchers will treat this as a feature rather than a bug. Studying parents' choices specifically — as opposed to the aggregate of parent-choice plus self-choice — is a defensible scope. But it is a different scope than naming data has historically tried to cover, and analysts should be explicit about which scope they are operating in.
The Counter-Position
The civil-rights case for the seal is so strong that I want to spend a moment on the strongest counter-argument, which I do not find persuasive but is worth naming. The counter-argument is that aggregate naming data is a public good, that obscuring portions of it harms historians and demographers who study gender and identity over the long arc of American history. Trans-rights research has, in fact, been advanced by the visibility of the very records the new law seals. Sealing them protects current minors at the cost of making future research on trans demographics harder.
I do not think this trade-off is close. The harm to current minors of having their dead names visible — at job applications, at school admissions, at any institutional encounter — is concrete and ongoing. The benefit to future demographers is abstract and distant. The right call is the seal. The data fog is a cost we should pay willingly.
What Other States Will Do
Colorado is unlikely to remain alone. California's AB 1084 sits adjacent to the same conversation. New York, Washington, Oregon, Massachusetts, and Illinois have advocacy infrastructure that will likely produce parallel laws within five years. The fog will spread. By 2030, a significant portion of U.S. legal name-change records affecting minors will be sealed by statute. The visibility of this category of naming behavior will have shrunk meaningfully relative to where it sat in 2020.
Meanwhile, the at-birth SSA chart will continue. It is the most stable and broadest naming dataset the country has, and nothing in current legislative trends will alter it. The SSA Top 1,000 of 2030 will continue to look like the SSA Top 1,000 has always looked. What it will quietly fail to show is the parallel pool of names that minors are choosing for themselves later. That pool will exist. It will just be invisible to the chart.
The Discontinuity
The most accurate way to describe Colorado's law, and the laws that will follow it, is as a discontinuity in naming data. The dataset before July 1, 2026 is one thing. The dataset after is a different thing. The boundary is statutory rather than cultural. Researchers comparing 2024 patterns to 2028 patterns will need to account for this in ways that comparisons across the 2014-to-2024 window did not require.
This is not unique to naming. Almost every consequential dataset in modern American life has discontinuities: changes in the Census long form, changes in public-health reporting, changes in unemployment classification. Colorado's law is one more such discontinuity. It is the right one. It just is one. The naming-trend pieces of the next decade will need to acknowledge that the photograph they are working from has had a portion blurred at the legislator's instruction. The blur is for good reason. It is also, simply, a blur.
The Photo We Inherit
The SSA chart, the state birth records, the licensing data we use here at NamesPop — all of these are inheritances from a particular institutional moment. Colorado has just edited the inheritance. The thing that will be inherited by researchers in 2030 is a slightly different artifact than the one inherited by researchers in 2020. The artifact is more humane. It is also, mathematically, more incomplete. Both things can be true. Both things are. The dataset is changing under our feet, in the direction that respect for the people in it requires. We should welcome the change. We should also be honest that the picture has, in one specific corner, gone slightly out of focus.
Data source: U.S. Social Security Administration. Analysis by NamesPop.
Found this helpful?
Share it with someone who’s picking a name.