Fact check: What is current policy and practice related to nonbinary reentry to the United States

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, the current policy and practice regarding nonbinary reentry to the United States is in a state of legal transition following recent court rulings. A federal judge has expanded a preliminary injunction in the case of Orr v. Trump, blocking enforcement of the Trump administration's policy that required passports to bear only a person's sex designation assigned at birth ^[1]. This ruling allows transgender, nonbinary, and intersex US passport holders to obtain passports with sex designations consistent with their gender identity or with an 'X' sex designation ^{[1] [2]}.

The US Department of State now permits certain individuals to receive a passport with their chosen sex marker (M, F, or X) if they meet specific criteria, such as not having a valid passport or needing to renew their current passport before it expires within one year ^[3]. Importantly, US Customs and Border Protection has stated that a foreign traveler's gender as indicated on their passport and their personal beliefs about sexuality do not affect admissibility to the United States ^[4].

No confirmed incidents have been reported of individuals facing problems when reentering the United States with an X gender marker passport ^[5], suggesting that current practice allows for nonbinary reentry without documented complications.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks important context about the international implications of current US policies. Several countries including Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Portugal have issued travel advisories warning their citizens about potential challenges when traveling to the United States if they are trans, non-binary, or hold a third-gender passport ^[6]. This suggests that while US policy may technically allow nonbinary reentry, international perception of the policy climate creates concern.

The analyses also reveal that the current policy situation is temporary and legally contested. The preliminary injunction represents temporary relief rather than permanent policy change, meaning the legal status could shift again. Organizations like the ACLU benefit from highlighting these legal victories as they demonstrate their effectiveness in protecting LGBTQ+ rights and can drive donations and support for their advocacy work.

Additionally, the US government provides resources for LGBTQ+ travelers and advises them to research destination laws and customs ^[7], but this guidance appears to focus more on outbound travel rather than reentry procedures for US citizens.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question does not contain explicit misinformation but lacks specificity that could lead to incomplete understanding. The question asks about "current policy and practice" without acknowledging that the legal landscape is actively changing due to ongoing court cases ^{[1] [8]}. This omission could suggest a more stable policy environment than actually exists.

The question also doesn't distinguish between US citizens with nonbinary documentation reentering the country versus foreign nationals with nonbinary documentation seeking entry, which are governed by different policies and procedures. The analyses show that current guidance primarily addresses US passport holders rather than comprehensive entry policies for all nonbinary individuals.