The Real ID deadline is finally here. How bad will it get at airports as long-delayed rules hit?
After nearly two decades of delays and warnings, implementation of the federal government's Real ID program is set to begin Wednesday at airports around the nation amid questions about how the change will impact air travel.
The requirement that travelers present a Real ID card as well as regular identifications marks one of the biggest changes to airport security, but officials on Tuesday said the roll-out will be gradual. Travelers will be allowed to fly without the Real ID but should expect additional questioning but generally will be able to board fights.
Travelers without a Real ID or a Transportation Security Administration-acceptable form of identification 'may be diverted to a different line, have an extra step,' at TSA checkpoints, said Kristi Noem, head of the Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday.
'We will make sure that it is as seamless as possible and that travelers will get to stay on their intended itinerary,' Noem said. 'What will happen tomorrow is folks will come through the line, and [they] will issue their ID and show it. If it's not compliant, they may be diverted to a different line, have an extra step, but people will be allowed to fly.'
John Breyault, vice president for the National Consumers League, warned travelers to expect that a high number of people will be diverted for additional screening. How that will impact wait times will depend on how many TSA officers will be assigned to perform the additional screening, he said.
Currently, 81% of travelers have the Real ID, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
'If 1 in 5 people are diverted to secondary screening at TSA, it will be a complete disaster at some airports around the country,' Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow of the American Immigration Council posted on X.
Whether you have a Real ID or not, Breyault suggested fliers arrive even earlier at the airport for the next few days and weeks to avoid missing a flight.
'Even in the best of times, we say, arrive at the airport an hour and a half early for domestic flights,' he said. 'I would say in the interest of just being as risk free as possible, two hours, at least, seems like a good rule of thumb.'
If you're traveling with a group with a mix of Real ID and non Real ID holders, factor in even more time depending on the number of people you're traveling with.
Congress passed the Real ID Act in 2005 to improve security and minimize fraud in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The original deadline to have a Real ID to allow Americans to travel domestically or enter federal facilities such as military bases or federal courthouses was May 2008.
Funding challenges, concerns over travel interruptions and the pandemic delayed the government from implementing the Real ID requirement for almost two decades.
'We are telling people that this law will be enforced, and it will allow us to know individuals in this country, who they are and that they're authorized to travel,' Noem said Tuesday.
As of Jan. 1, more than 18.5 million California residents now have their Real ID, compared with last year's January count of 16.9 million according to recent data from the California Department of Motor Vehicles. More than 35 million Californians have either an ID, both an ID and a driver's license, or an ID for people under the age of 16.
If you don't have a Real ID or you applied for one but it won't arrive by the May 7 deadline, the TSA will accept other forms of identification at screening checkpoints.
The TSA accepts:
U.S. passport
U.S. passport card
Department of Homeland Security trusted traveler cards (Global Entry, NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST)
U.S. Department of Defense ID, including IDs issued to dependents
Permanent resident card
Border crossing card
An acceptable photo ID issued by a federally recognized Tribal Nation/Indian Tribe, including Enhanced Tribal Cards.
HSPD-12 Personal identity verification card
Foreign government-issued passport
Canadian provincial driver's license or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada card
Transportation worker identification credential
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Employment Authorization Card (I-766)
U.S. Merchant Mariner Credential
Veteran Health Identification Card
A TSA officer may ask you to complete an identity verification process which includes collecting information such as your name and current address to confirm your identify, according to the TSA website. It is unclear how that information is verified.
If your identity is confirmed, you will be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint, where you may be subject to additional screening.
You will not be allowed to enter the security checkpoint if you decline to provide acceptable identification, you don't cooperate with the identity verification process or your identity cannot be confirmed.
To get a Real ID, you have to apply for it through your local Department of Motor Vehicles office.
From now until June 27, 18 DMV offices will open at 7 a.m., an hour earlier, on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays to serve only people with appointments to obtain a Real ID.
To start the process, you should visit the DMV website and review the document checklist for what you'll need to prove your identity and residency. You can fill out an application online, upload the required documents and schedule an appointment at your local DMV office.
These DMV offices will open an hour early:
Pleasanton (6300 W. Las Positas Blvd.)
Fremont (4287 Central Ave.)
Folsom (323 E. Bidwell St., Suite A)
Carmichael (5209 North Ave.)
Thousand Oaks (1810 E. Avenida de los Arboles)
Van Nuys (14920 Vanowen St.)
Arleta (14400 Van Nuys Blvd.)
Glendale (1335 W. Glenoaks Blvd.)
Pasadena (49 S. Rosemead Blvd.)
Culver City (11400 W. Washington Blvd.)
Westminster (13700 Hoover St.)
Costa Mesa (650 W. 19th St.)
San Clemente (2727 Via Cascadita)
Rancho Cucamonga (8629 Hellman Ave.)
San Diego Clairemont (4375 Derrick Drive)
San Marcos (590 Rancheros Drive)
El Cajon (1450 Graves Ave.)
Poway (13461 Community Road)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
32 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: The tax changes in the U.S. Senate are a mixed bag
As is its right and duty, the U.S. Senate now has messed with the Trump administration's 'big, beautiful,' tax-and-spending bill that just squeaked through the House. Here's our hot take on some of the Senate's work in progress, as viewed not in terms of what is ideal but in the context of what the House already passed. We're all for limiting the 'no-tax-on-tips' deduction to $25,000 per person. We didn't like the campaign promise in the first place and its application to servers at fancy joints who make very good money is especially unfair on those employees who don't receive tips. Same deal with the smart idea to limit 'no tax on overtime' to $12,500 (or $25,000 per couple). That's not fair either, but it's certainly better to make sure only lesser paid folks get the benefit. It's more justifiable for servers at Denny's than Alinea. And while plenty of seniors do not need a bigger $6,000 tax break (in lieu of Trump's promises not to tax social security), that amount is pegged about right to make a difference in the lives of the people who need it without offering anything of life-changing significance to wealthier Americans. We suspect that will be expensive but can live with that. And it made sense for the Senate version to limit another wacky Trump giveaway, no tax on car loans, to vehicles. It limits the cost of the $10,000 tax break, helps workers in dealerships and factories, and gets more cars with advanced safety features and gas mileage on the road. It also will be harder to game than the House version, applicable to any car. We're all for a modest increase in both the standard deduction and the child tax allowance (the Senate would make it $2,200), being as temporary increases with expiry dates invariably represent sleight of hand to our minds. We're all for reducing the tax on university endowment income (to 8%); the House version, which went as high as 21%, was mere Trumpian punitiveness and would have harmed the sector immeasurably. Arguably, the current 1.4% rate for endowments is too low, given the legitimate concerns about the expansion of the national debt. But we'd be happier if a more comprehensive look at all non-profit tax breaks was taking place; there's no reason to single out universities beyond ideology or revenge, neither of which should be part of tax policy. The Senate should consider that. Regular readers know that we favor raising the cap imposed by Trump in the so-called SALT deduction, not least on the grounds of fairness, given that nobody should have to pay taxes twice on the same money earned. Property taxes have been rising in cities like Chicago, where many homeowners now pay more than $10,000 a year in property tax alone and some tax relief is only reasonable. In the House, the cap went to $40,000, albeit with income restrictions, but the Senate draft kills that increase. Trump's initial actions were about punishing blue cities and he caught up too many middle-class Americans in his dragnet. That needs to change and we're confident a compromise can be found. Finally, here's something else to like in the Senate version. Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) has been pushing a plan to claw back revenue from the $15.2 billion litigation finance industry, wherein investors finance lawsuits in order to get a piece of any future award or settlement. This can be a really nice ca-ching for investors, even in downtimes in other markets, but it is deeply problematic for cities like Chicago as it encourages lengthy lawsuits and also drives up the cost of settlements at taxpayer expense since the actual injured party inevitably gets less of the payout. Given the whole parking meter morass, we've had more than enough of Chicagoans' hard-earned money landing in these kinds of hands. We're all for the Senate's proposed 41% levy on litigation finance profits—if only because it should curtail this practice by making it less attractive.
The Hill
35 minutes ago
- The Hill
Another broken promise: Trump is targeting states' power over medical marijuana
Millions of Americans rely on medical cannabis, and most states regulate the production and dispensing of state-licensed medical cannabis products. But that could all change if the Trump administration gets its way. That's because the White House's 2026 fiscal year budget request seeks to repeal a longstanding federal budget rider prohibiting the Justice Department from using taxpayer dollars to prosecute patients and others involved in state-legal medical cannabis programs. Members of Congress need to ensure that patients' rights, as well as the right of states to set their own marijuana policies, remain protected. Since 2014, Congress has recognized the importance of state medical cannabis access laws. For more than a decade, lawmakers have made it clear that federal prosecutorial resources must not be used to target patients, caregivers or medical cannabis providers who are compliant with their state laws. Prior to the passage of the amendment, federal prosecutors routinely took actions against patients and dispensary operators in jurisdictions where medical cannabis is state-legal. On various occasions, federal officials even threatened the livelihoods of physicians who spoke openly with their patients about cannabis' medical utility. It's entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that federal prosecutors will once again engage in these heavy-handed tactics if this provision is rescinded. Support for the use of medical cannabis is bipartisan, and its efficacy has been scientifically validated. It is a well-established therapeutic agent for patients suffering from chronic pain, appetite loss, seizure conditions and a litany of other illnesses. Over 30,000 health-care practitioners nationwide are currently recommending medical cannabis to their patients, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and nearly 70 percent of U.S. clinicians are supportive of its use. Over 90 percent of voters support the public's access to medical cannabis products, and even President Donald Trump has acknowledged that it can be an 'absolutely amazing' treatment for certain patients. President Trump has also championed the idea that state-specific marijuana policies ought to be respected by the federal government and that cannabis's federally prohibited status as a Schedule I substance ought to be amended. 'As President, we will continue to focus on research to unlock the medical uses of marijuana to a Schedule 3 drug,' he pledged on the campaign trail. 'And [we will] work with Congress to pass common sense laws, including safe banking for state authorized companies, and supporting states' rights to pass marijuana laws … that work so well for their citizens.' Now is not the time for the president to turn his back on that promise. Instead, the administration ought to position itself as a defender of individual liberties and health freedom. Patients and their state-authorized providers are not criminals, and there is no legitimate reason for either Congress or the White House to target them. Patients deserve compassion, the opinions of their physicians ought to be respected and states' decisions to regulate marijuana as they see fit should not be unduly infringed upon by the federal government. Paul Armentano is the deputy director of NORML — the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws — and he is the co-author of the book 'Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink?' (Chelsea Green, 2013).
CNBC
37 minutes ago
- CNBC
'Most taxpayers will see a cut': Senate's tax plan for Trump's spending package would permanently extend TCJA cuts
This week, the Senate Finance Committee released details on its version of President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful" budget bill. The committee's text reveals some departures from the version of the legislation that passed the House last month, including differences in Medicaid rules, state and local tax deduction limits and clean energy tax credits. The differences could set up the two chambers to duke it out over the details as they approach a self-imposed July 4 deadline to get the legislation on Trump's desk. If you're wondering if your taxes are likely to go down next year, the answer is almost certainly, "yes." That's because both versions of the bill permanently extend the tax cuts introduced in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, while also introducing a new slate of breaks for filers. "It's a continuation of tax policy in place right now, plus additional tax cuts on top of that," says Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation. "On net, most taxpayers will see a tax cut, and on average, all income groups would see a tax cut." The 2017 bill brought about sweeping, albeit temporary, changes to the tax code. Provisions which nearly doubled the standard deduction, upped the monetary thresholds for tax brackets, lowered the top tax rate and bumped up the child tax credit are set to expire at the end of 2025. If Congress lets that happen, 62% of taxpayers will see an increase in what they pay Uncle Sam, according to Tax Foundation estimates. "Lawmakers across the board, and I would say even across the aisle, agree that they don't want to see those tax increases happen for the vast majority of Americans," says York. Whether the final version of the budget bill looks more like the House or Senate version, Americans are getting continuity: the same tax rates, the same brackets and a standard deduction that's high enough to keep taxes simple for the vast majority of Americans; just 9% of taxpayers itemized in 2022, compared with 31% in 2017, according to data released by Congress. Both versions of the bill call for an increase in the standard deduction beginning after tax year 2025. However, some tax breaks look different in the Senate and House versions of the legislation. The Senate bill, for instance, raises the nonrefundable Child Tax Credit to $2,200 starting in 2025, $300 lower than what the House proposed. Both versions make good on Trump's campaign promise to do away with taxes on tipped income, but the Senate legislation caps the deduction at $25,000 a year, with different rules about who can claim the break based on income. Regardless of what the bill looks like in its final form, it's worth keeping track of exactly how it affects what you owe come tax time, says York. To figure out what kind of tax break you got, focus on what you pay next year versus what you paid this year, she says — not the difference in any refund you might receive. "Your refund doesn't really reflect how much you actually pay. It just reflects whether your withholding matched up with what your tax liability was supposed to be," she says. "Whether or not you get a refund [is] not related to what Congress is doing with tax law."
