Is REAL ID really necessary? What authorities are saying
The Department of Homeland Security in May will begin implementing REAL ID requirements for U.S. travelers for the first time, a move that comes as the administration looks to act on some of President Donald Trump's top policy priorities, including its crackdown on illegal immigration and border security.
The enhanced ID requirements are slated to take effect May 7 and will apply to all U.S. travelers over the age of 18.
The law establishing REAL IDs isn't new: Congress first passed the REAL ID Act in 2005 in an effort to crack down on identity verification in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and set "minimum security standards" for state-issued driver's licenses and identification cards.
But after 20 years of slow-walking the law's enforcement, the abrupt timing of the May 7 enforcement is likely to catch many Americans flat-footed.
Just how necessary is obtaining a "REAL ID"? We broke down the changes coming next month and what's at stake for those who don't comply. Here's what you need to know in the final weeks before the new rules take force.
Beginning May 7, all federal agencies, including DHS and TSA, are required to accept only state-issued driver's licenses and state identification cards that comply with the updated identity verification standards.
The goal of the REAL ID Act is "to make state driver's licenses and ID cards (which are identification cards that states issue to non-drivers) more secure, less susceptible to fraud, and more reliable as a form of identification," Magdalena Krajewska, an associate political science professor, wrote in a 2020 article for the Oxford Academic. (The government has for years tried to stand up the REAL ID requirements, most recently in the months before the COVID-19 pandemic.)
The law seeks to add another layer of security to various forms of identification and to make it harder to counterfeit state IDs.
The short answer: It depends. In order to obtain this enhanced form of ID, individuals must present to their local DMV valid proof of identity; proof of their Social Security number and date of birth, and two additional documents that prove they live in the state. This varies from state to state, though updated guidance can be found here.
The good news is that individuals can obtain one of the enhanced IDs at any time. All 50 states, D.C., and five U.S. territories are now issuing REAL ID-compliant driver's licenses and ID cards, according to the DHS.
The REAL ID requirements are a "coordinated effort by the federal government to improve the reliability and accuracy of driver's licenses and identification cards for individuals across the federal government," Bart Johnson, TSA's federal security director for upstate New York, told reporters this month.
Every adult in the U.S., if they want to travel by plane or enter government facilities.
"Every air traveler 18 years of age and older must have a REAL ID-compliant ID, which is a state-issued driver's license, state-issued identification card, or another acceptable form of ID, such as a U.S. passport" before the May 7 deadline, the Transportation Security Administration said in a statement.
Though the other IDs are not rendered obsolete, the TSA said Americans will need to present these new IDs every time they board a commercial flight, even when traveling on a domestic trip. They will also need this updated ID to access federal facilities or be granted access to federal buildings.
No, not everyone needs to get a new ID. In fact, certain states have required REAL ID verification from residents for years, meaning individuals living in those states and with active forms of identification need not hustle to the local DMV.
Enhanced and "REAL ID-compliant" identification cards are marked with a seal, often a star in the top right-hand corner, according to DHS.
The abrupt enforcement timeline could catch many Americans flat-footed, especially ahead of what is predicted to be a busy summer travel season.
While legacy IDs are still valid for travel, including driving, airline passengers who present noncompliant forms of ID before boarding, and without another acceptable alternative, such as a passport, "can expect to face delays, additional screening and the possibility of not being permitted into the security checkpoint," DHS officials said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
WIRED
24 minutes ago
- WIRED
The ‘Long-Term Danger' of Trump Sending Troops to the LA Protests
Jun 10, 2025 12:24 PM President Trump's deployment of more than 700 Marines to Los Angeles—following ICE raids and mass protests—has ignited a fierce national debate over state sovereignty and civil-military boundaries. LAPD officers and National Guard soldiers stand on patrol as demonstrators protest outside a jail in downtown Los Angeles following two days of clashes with police during a series of immigration raids on June 8, 2025. Photograph:As hundreds of United States Marines deploy in Los Angeles under presidential orders to protect federal property amid growing protests over immigration enforcement, constitutional scholars and civil rights attorneys warn of long-term implications for American democracy and civil-military relations. President Donald Trump revealed Monday that he had ordered the deployment of more than 700 activity-duty Marines out of Camp Pendleton—an extraordinary use of military force in response to civil unrest. The move, widely condemned by his critics, follows Trump's federalization of the National Guard. Some 3,800 guardsmen have since been deployed in California against the objections of its government, spurring debate among legal observers over the limits of the president's power to send troops into American streets. Trump ordered the deployments in response to thousands of Angelenos who took to the streets on Friday in protests. LA residents responded after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents carried out sweeping raids of local businesses, arresting, among others, dozens of day laborers who were vying for work outside a local Home Depot. Larger demonstrations soon formed and remained largely peaceful until residents were engaged by police with riot shields and crowd control weapons. Over the weekend, the clashes between police and protesters escalated across many neighborhoods with large immigrant populations. Numerous buildings were vandalized with anti-ICE messages, and several Waymo autonomous vehicles were set ablaze. Videos captured by protest attendees show police firing upon demonstrators with rubber bullets and other crowd control agents, including waves of asphyxiating CS gas. Members of the press shared images online showing injuries they incurred from the police assault. In widely shared footage, a Los Angeles police officer appears to intentionally target an Australian reporter, Lauren Tomasi, shooting her from feet away with a rubber bullet as she delivers a monologue into a camera. On Monday, CNN correspondent Jason Carroll was arrested live on air. California governor Gavin Newsom condemned Trump's troop deployment in posts on social media, calling the president's actions an 'unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' His attorney general, Rob Bonata, has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming the order violated the state's sovereignty, infringing on Newsom's authority as the California National Guard's commander in chief. In response to a request for comment, the Department of Defense referred WIRED to a US Northern Command press release detailing the deployment of Marines and National Guardsmen. Federal troops in the United States are ordinarily barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. This rule, known as 'posse comitatus,' may be suspended, however, by a sitting president in cases of civil unrest or outright rebellion. This exception—permitted under the Insurrection Act—allows the president to deploy troops when circumstances make it 'impracticable' for state authorities to enforce federal law by 'ordinary' means. While these powers are most often invoked at the request of a state government, the president may also invoke the act when a state chooses to ignore the constitutional rights of its inhabitants—as happened multiple times in the mid-20th century, when southern states refused to desegregate schools after the Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. President Trump, however, has so far not invoked the Insurrection Act, relying instead on a theory of 'inherent authority' advanced by the US Justice Department in 1971 during the height of the anti–Vietnam War protests. This interpretation of presidential power finds that troops may be deployed in an effort to 'protect federal property and functions.' Notably—unlike the Insurrection Act—this does not permit troops to engage in activities that are generally the purview of civilian law enforcement agencies. Trump also invoked statutory power granted to him by Congress under Title 10 of the US Code, which enabled him to federalize elements of California's National Guard. These activations typically occur when guardsmen are needed to support overseas military operations, as happened routinely this century during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Domestically, however, guardsmen are not usually federalized without the agreement of a state's governor—unless the Insurrection Act has been invoked. Legal experts interviewed by WIRED offered a range of opinions on the president's authority to deploy active-duty military troops or federalize the National Guard. While most believe it is likely within Trump's power to ignore Newsom's express objections, doing so without an invocation of the Insurrection Act, they say, is a decision fraught with legal complexities that carries serious implications, from altering—perhaps permanently—the fundamental relationship between Americans, states, and the federal government, to disturbing the delicate balance between civilian governance and military power. Liza Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, underscores the 'unprecedented' nature of Trump's approach. 'He's trying to basically exercise the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it,' she says. A key issue for Goitein is that the memorandum signed by Trump last week federalizing the National Guard makes no mention of Los Angeles or California. Rather, it states that the guardsmen are being mobilized to address protests that are both 'occurring' and 'likely to occur.' In essence, the memo 'authorizes the deployment of federal troops anywhere in the country,' Goitein says, 'including places where there are no protests yet. We're talking about preemptive deployment.' Goitein argues that the administration's justifications could undermine both judicial accountability and civil‑military boundaries. Under the Insurrection Act, federal troops can take on the responsibilities of local and state police. But without it, their authority should be quite limited. Neither the guardsmen nor the Marines, for instance, should engage with protesters acting peacefully, according to Goitein. 'He says they're there to protect federal property,' she says. 'But it looks a lot like quelling civil unrest.' Anthony Kuhn, a 28-year US Army veteran and managing partner at Tully Rinckey, believes, meanwhile, that there is really 'no question' that Trump would be justified in declaring a 'violent rebellion' underway in California, empowering him to ignore Newsom's objections. The images and video of protesters hurling rocks and other items at police and lighting cars on fire all serve as evidence toward that conclusion. 'I know people in California, the governor, the mayor, are trying to frame it as a protest. But at this point,' says Kuhn, 'it's a violent rebellion. You can draw your own conclusions from the pictures and videos floating around.' Kuhn argues that the intentions of the protesters, the politics fueling the demonstrations, don't matter. 'They're attacking federal facilities. They're destroying federal property. So in an attempt to restore the peace, the president has the authority under Title 10 to deploy troops. It's pretty straightforward.' In contrast, Rutgers University professor Bruce Afran says deploying military forces against Americans is 'completely unconstitutional' in the absence of a true state of domestic insurrection. 'There was an attack on ICE's offices, the doorways, there was some graffiti, there were images of protesters breaking into a guardhouse, which was empty,' he says. 'But even if it went to the point of setting a car on fire, that's not a domestic insurrection. That's a protest that is engaged in some illegality. And we have civil means to punish it without the armed forces.' Afran argues that meddling with the expectations of civilians, who naturally anticipate interacting with police but not armed soldiers, can fundamentally alter the relationship between citizens and their government, even blurring the line between democracy and authoritarianism. 'The long-term danger is that we come to accept the role of the army in regulating civilian protest instead of allowing local law enforcement to do the job,' he says. 'And once we accept that new paradigm—to use a kind of BS word—the relationship between the citizen and the government is altered forever.' 'Violent rioters in Los Angeles, enabled by Democrat governor Gavin Newsom, have attacked American law enforcement, set cars on fire, and fueled lawless chaos," Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, tells WIRED. "President Trump rightfully stepped in to protect federal law enforcement officers. When Democrat leaders refuse to protect American citizens, President Trump will always step in.' As the orders to mobilize federal troops have come down, some users on social media have urged service members to consider the orders unlawful and refuse to obey—a move that legal experts say would be very difficult to pull off. David Coombs, a lecturer in criminal procedure and military law at the University of Buffalo and a veteran of the US Army's Judge Advocate General's Corps, says it's hypothetically possible that troops could question whether Trump has the authority to mobilize state guardsmen over the objection of a state governor. 'I think ultimately the answer to that will be yes,' he says. 'But it is a gray area. When you look at the chain of command, it envisions the governor controlling all of these individuals.' Separately, says Coombs, when troops are ordered to mobilize, they could—again, hypothetically—refuse to engage in activities that are beyond the scope of the president's orders, such as carrying out immigration raids or making arrests. 'All they can do in this case, under Title 10 status, is protect the safety of federal personnel and property. If you go beyond that, then it violates the Posse Comitatus Act.' Federal troops, for instance, would need civilian police to step in. At the point, authorities want peaceful protesters to disperse. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that, in a letter on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem requested that military troops be directed to detain alleged 'lawbreakers' during protests 'or arrest them,' which legal experts almost universally agree would be illegal under ordinary circumstances. The letter was addressed to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and accused the anti-ICE protesters of being 'violent, insurrectionist mobs' aiming to 'protect invaders and military aged males belonging to identified foreign terrorist organizations.' Khun, who warns there's a big difference between philosophizing over what constitutes an unlawful order and disobeying commands, dismisses the idea that troops, in the heat of the moment, will have an option. 'It's not going to be litigated in the middle of an actual deployment,' he says. 'There's no immediate relief, no immediate way to prove that an order is unlawful.' Khun says that were he deployed into a similar situation, 'me and my junior soldiers would not respond to a nonviolent or peaceful protest.' Asked what protesters should expect, should they engage with federal troops trained for combat overseas, Kuhn says the Marines will hold their ground more firmly than police, who are often forced to retreat as mobs approach. In addition to being armed with the same crowd control weapons, Marines are extensively trained in close-quarters combat. 'I would expect a defensive response,' he says, 'but not lethal force.' Additional reporting by Alexa O'Brien.
CNBC
25 minutes ago
- CNBC
Immigrant framed for Trump threats can be released on bond, judge says
The undocumented Mexican immigrant who was detained after being framed by a jailed inmate for threatening President Donald Trump can be released on a $7,500 bond, a Chicago Immigration Court judge ruled Tuesday morning. Judge Carla Espinoza said at a hearing that she does not believe Milwaukee resident Ramon Morales-Reyes is a danger to the community pending removal proceedings. The judge noted that although the 54-year-old Morales-Reyes has been arrested several times since 1996, he has only been convicted once, for disorderly conduct. An attorney representing the Department of Homeland Security did not oppose a request by the immigrant's lawyer, Cain Oulahan, requesting bond. Oulahan and Morales-Reyes appeared remotely, with the immigrant still detained in Dodge County Jail in Wisconsin. Espinoza said that if Morales-Reyes is unable to post bond, the next hearing in the case will be on July 10, and that she would set another date if the married dad of three is released. CNBC has requested comment from Oulahan. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, in a statement, said, "While this criminal illegal alien is no longer under investigation for threats against the President, he is in the country illegally with previous arrests for felony hit and run, criminal damage to property, and disorderly conduct with domestic abuse." "The Trump administration is committed to restoring the rule of law and fulfilling the President's mandate to deport illegal aliens. DHS will continue to fight for the arrest, detention, and removal of illegal aliens who have no right to be in this country," McLaughlin said. Morales-Reyes, who has lived in the United States since 1986, was arrested May 22 on suspicion that he had written three letters to law enforcement officers in Wisconsin that threatened Trump and others. A week later, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem touted Morales-Reyes' arrest in a news release that called the dishwasher an "illegal alien," and featured his photo, as well as an image of a handwritten letter threatening to shoot "your precious president" Trump. But Milwaukee police who questioned Morales-Reyes quickly realized there was a problem with the allegations against him, court records show. First, a handwriting sample Morales-Reyes provided was "completely different" from the writing on the letters and the envelopes, which bore his home address as the return address, a criminal complaint says. Also, Morales-Reyes does not speak, read, or write English fluently, while the writing in the letters was in English. When a police detective asked Morales-Reyes, "Who would want to get [him] in trouble, [he] stated that the only person who would want to get him in [trouble] was the person who had robbed him and who law enforcement knows to be the defendant, Demetric D. Scott." Scott, who is detained in Milwaukee County Jail, was arrested in late 2023 for allegedly robbing Morales-Reyes and attacking him with a box cutter. Scott, 52, told police in late May that he had written the threatening letters about Trump, and put Morales-Reyes' address on the envelopes before they were sent on his behalf by others, to get the immigrant arrested by federal authorities so that he would be unable to testify at Scott's criminal trial in July, court records state. Scott hoped that his case would be dismissed when Morales-Reyes failed to appear in court, those records say. Scott has been charged with identity theft, felony intimidation of a witness, and bail jumping in connection with the letters plot. At the time Morales-Reyes was arrested, he had applied for a special type of visa available to victims of certain crimes. The web page announcing the Morales-Reyes' arrest remains up on DHS's site, with the now discredited allegations against him. At the bottom of that page is a "disclaimer," which notes that he is no longer under investigation for threatening Trump. —
Hamilton Spectator
31 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
An immigrant Wisconsin man falsely accused of threatening Trump can be released on bond
CHICAGO (AP) — An immigrant man who was falsely accused of threatening to assassinate President Donald Trump can be released from a Wisconsin prison on bond, an immigration judge determined Tuesday. Ramón Morales Reyes was accused of a writing a letter threatening Trump in a blistering social media post by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The post includes Morales Reyes' photo and an excerpt from the letter he purportedly wrote in English. But the claims quickly fell apart as Wisconsin authorities determined that Reyes, who doesn't speak English well or write in the language, was framed. The immigrant from Mexico was a victim in a violent 2023 attack where his bike was stolen. According to authorities, the alleged attacker, Demetric D. Scott , forged the letter to try to clear his case. Morales Reyes was set to be a witness in Scott's July trial for armed robbery and aggravated battery. Judge Carla Espinoza set Morales Reyes bond at $7,500 during a brief hearing at immigration court in Chicago. 'The defendant does not present a danger to the community,' she said. Morales Reyes, 54, appeared virtually from Dodge Detention Center in Juneau, about 70 miles (113 kilometers) north of Milwaukee. He could be released this week if the federal government does not appeal. An attorney for the federal government did not speak at the hearing. In a statement Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security said it would 'continue to fight for the arrest, detention, and removal' of immigrants without legal status but did not respond to a question about whether government attorneys would appeal Morales Reyes' bond. Morales Reyes, a married father of three U.S. citizen children, works as a dishwasher in Milwaukee. He was arrested by immigration agents last month after dropping a child off at school. He immigrated from Mexico in the 1980s and doesn't have legal permission to be in the U.S. This year, he applied for a U visa, which is for people in the country illegally who are victims of serious crimes. Getting such a visa can take years. Homeland Security issued a statement to reporters last week saying that although Morales Reyes was no longer considered a threat to Trump, federal attorneys would still pursue an immigration case. The government alleges that Morales Reyes reentered the U.S. times numerous times without a visa. However, Noem's social media post blaming Morales Reyes for an assassination attempt, which was circulated by Trump supporters, remains online. Cain Oulahan, an attorney for Morales Reyes, said his client is a crime victim and blasted the misinformation. 'We'd like to hear an official public correction and that someone else is responsible,' he said. Ahead of Tuesday's hearing, Morales Reyes daughter spoke to reporters, saying her father is hardworking and always focused on putting food on the table and keeping a roof over the family's heads. She said he also loved to take his children to parks or for walks and planned frequent cookouts. 'My dad is a not a threat to anyone. He is a good man who got caught up in a terrible situation,' said Anna Morales. 'Now that the truth has been proven, I ask from the bottom of my heart he gets the justice he deserves. We need him more than words can explain.' Scott, who is in the Milwaukee County Jail, is due in court Tuesday on the newer charges related to the letter, including felony witness intimidation and identity theft. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
