Fact-Check: Is Donald Trump Legalizing Driving Without a License?
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Several videos have gone viral on TikTok making false claims that President Donald Trump plans to abolish driver's license requirements starting in 2026.
The videos have widely circulated on the platform over the past week though there is no evidence that the Trump administration has proposed and such laws or orders.
Newsweek contacted the Department of Transportation on Thursday afternoon to ask about the videos.
The Claim
This month, numerous social media users on TikTok have suggested that beginning in January 2026, people will not need a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle.
The videos, which have been viewed and shared thousands of times, feature creators either promoting the claim directly or reacting to it with disbelief and concern.
One video, which has been shared over 200,000 times, was posted by user @melaashara. She said: "So, by January of 2026, you do not need a driver's license to drive anymore. You literally can get in the car and go."
That video, which provides no evidence to back up the claim, has been liked over half a million times as of June 26.
A second video by creator @dlb_teeford and has been liked over 100,000 times features the creator saying, "I just heard, starting 2026, you don't need a license no more to drive? So you telling me, I took that long-a** class to get a license just for time the time to pass, three years later, I ... don't even need a license!"
The Facts
Newsweek reporters could not find evidence to support the claim that the Trump administration has made any moves to make licenses not needed to operate a motor vehicle.
The licensing of drivers is governed by state laws, not the federal government, according to Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration regulations.
Even if a president supported ending certain requirements, a change would require significant state-level legislative action or a modification of existing transportation regulations at the federal level.
No change is being implemented in 2026 regarding personal driver's license requirements. Each state is expected to enforce its own licensing laws.
Trump formally rolled out new driving protocols on April 28 per a White House fact sheet, after he signed an executive order.
But, rather than easing licensing requirements, the order increases enforcement for commercial drivers in the United States and mandates that commercial vehicle operators are "properly qualified and proficient in English."
Further, the regulation "instructs the Secretary of Transportation to review state issuance of non-domiciled commercial driver's licenses to identify any irregularities and ensure American drivers are validly licensed and qualified."
The Ruling
False.
The Trump administration's policy actions in April 2025 targeted commercial driver qualifications, not eliminating licensing altogether. No legitimate government website has documented an executive order or policy directive from Trump concerning the elimination of driver's licenses next year.
FACT CHECK BY Newsweek
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
13 minutes ago
Key Medicaid provision in Trump's bill is found to violate Senate rules. The GOP is scrambling
WASHINGTON -- The Senate parliamentarian has advised that a Medicaid provider tax overhaul central to President Donald Trump's tax cut and spending bill does not adhere to the chamber's procedural rules, delivering a crucial blow as Republicans rush to finish the package this week. Guidance from the parliamentarian is rarely ignored and Republican leaders are now forced to consider difficult options. Republicans were counting on big cuts to Medicaid and other programs to offset trillions of dollars in Trump tax breaks, their top priority. Additionally, the parliamentarian, who is the Senate's chief arbiter of its often complicated rules, advised against various GOP provisions barring certain immigrants from health care programs. Republicans scrambled Thursday to respond, with some calling for challenging, or ever firing, the nonpartisan parliamentarian, who has been on the job since 2012, though GOP leaders dismissed those views. Instead, they worked to revise the various proposals. 'We have contingency plans," said Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota. Friday's expected votes appeared to be slipping, but Thune insisted that 'we're plowing forward.' But Democrats, who are unified against package as a tax giveaway for the wealthy at the expense of American safety net programs, said the procedural decisions would devastate the GOP package. Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said the Republican proposals would have meant $250 billion less for the health care program, 'massive Medicaid cuts that hurt kids, seniors, Americans with disabilities and working families.' The outcome is a setback as Senate Republicans race toward a weekend session to pass the bill and send it back to the House for another vote before Trump's Fourth of July deadline. Trump hosted House Speaker Mike Johnson and other GOP lawmakers in the East Room at the White House joined by truck drivers, firefighters, tipped workers, ranchers and others that the administration says will benefit from the bill. "We don't want to have grandstanders,' Trump said of the GOP holdouts. Trump said there are 'hundreds of things' in the emerging package of tax breaks, spending cuts and bolstered money to carry out his mass deportation plans. 'It's so good.' At its core, the big bill, which has passed the House and is now being revised in the Senate, includes $3.8 trillion in tax breaks that had been approved during Trump's first term, but will expire in December imposing a tax hike if Congress fails to act. To help offset lost revenues, Republicans are relying on steep cuts to health care and food stamps, and imposing new fees on immigrants. GOP leaders were already struggling to rally support for Medicaid changes that some senators said went too far and would have left millions without coverage. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said more than 10.9 million more people would not have health care under the House-passed bill; Senate Republicans were proposing deeper cuts. After the parliamentarian advised against the the Medicaid provider tax change Republicans said they would try to revise the provision to make it acceptable, perhaps by extending the start date of any changes. They are rushing to come up with similar adjustments to other proposals that have run into violations, including one to change the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps. It's all delaying action on the bill, but Republican leaders have little choice. They are counting on the health care restrictions to save billions of dollars and offset the cost of trillions of dollars in tax cuts. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the Budget Committee chairman rejected calls to fire the parliamentarian, and said in statement he was working with the office to "find a pathway forward." States impose the so-called provider tax on hospitals and other entities as a way to help fund Medicaid, largely by boosting the reimbursements they receive from the federal government. Critics say the system is a type of 'laundering,' but almost every state except Alaska uses it to help provide the health care coverage. The House-passed bill would freeze the tax, while the Senate would cut the tax that some states are allowed to impose. Several GOP senators have opposed cutting the Medicaid provider tax, saying it would hurt rural hospitals that depend on the money. Hospital organizations have warned that it could lead to hospital closures. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., among those fighting the change, said he had spoken to Trump late Wednesday and that the president told him to revert back to the earlier proposal from the House. 'I think it just confirms that we weren't ready for a vote yet,' said Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who also had raised concerns about the provider tax cuts. More than 80 millions people in the United States use the Medicaid program, alongside the Obama-era Affordable Care Act. Republicans want to scale Medicaid back to what they say is its original mission, providing care mainly to women and children, rather than a much larger group of people. To help defray lost revenues to the hospitals, one plan Republicans had been considering would have created a rural hospital fund with $15 billion as back up. Some GOP senators said that was too much; others, including Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, wanted at least $100 billion. The parliamentarian has worked around the clock since late last week to assess the legislation and ensure it complies with the so-called Byrd Rule, named for the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia. It essentially bars policy matters in budget reconciliation bills. If leaders moved ahead without altering the provisions that have been found to violate the rules, those measures could be challenged in a floor vote, requiring a 60-vote threshold to overcome objections. That would be a tall order in a Senate divided 53-47 and with Democrats unified against Trump's bill. 'It's pretty frustrating,' said Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., who wants even steeper reductions. Overnight Wednesday the parliamentarian advised against GOP student loan repayment plans, and Thursday advised against provisions those that would have blocked access for immigrants who are not citizens to Medicaid, Medicare and other health care programs, including one that would have cut money to states that allow some migrants into Medicaid. Earlier, proposals to cut food stamps were ruled in violation of Senate rules, as was a plan to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said there's no desire to challenge the parliamentarian's advice. 'It the institutional integrity,' he said. 'Even if I'm convinced 100% she's wrong."
Time Magazine
13 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
TIME100 Most Influential Companies 2025: SpaceX
There may be no rocketeer who has ever had more political and financial muscle than SpaceX founder Elon Musk. The company's Falcon 9 rocket continues to be the world's workhorse launcher, with 489 completed missions since 2010. Its massive, reusable Starship system—still very much in the developmental stage—has had nine launches since 2023, and suffered a launch pad explosion in June in the run up to what was supposed to be its tenth launch. It remains on track to serve as the lunar landing vehicle in NASA's return-to-the-moon Artemis program. But June saw headwinds for Musk, when he and President Donald Trump began feuding over the GOP's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' which Musk opposed, Trump supported, and the House passed in May. The war of social media words quickly devolved, with Trump threatening to void Musk's billions of dollars in government contracts and Musk threatening to ground SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, the only crewed ride to orbit the U.S. currently has. Trump could clobber SpaceX with a stroke of a presidential Sharpie. But it's a sign of Musk's power that Trump wouldn't dare, lest NASA and the private space sector find themselves badly hobbled on Earth. The richest man in the world and the most powerful man in the world are fighting to a draw. Disclosure: Investors in SpaceX include TIME owner and co-chair Marc Benioff
Time Magazine
13 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
TIME100 Most Influential Companies 2025: Meta
In April, Mark Zuckerberg told tech podcaster Dwarkesh Patel that the average American has 'demand for meaningfully more' friends. The Meta CEO's odd formulation of social relationships was the precursor to an equally weird 'solution.' Zuckerberg's vision for the AI future, which he laid out in detail this spring, involves populating your feeds with 'AI friends' who get to know you over time by harvesting your data. These days Meta, currently engaged in a war for AI supremacy against OpenAI and Google, seems more interested in AI than the genuine social connection that Facebook was founded to foster. (In June it announced a $14.3 billion investment and 49% stake in the AI data industry-leading startup Scale AI.) Meta's recommendation algorithms now boost a new kind of AI-generated engagement bait, which has derogatively been labeled 'slop.' And it recently launched a suite of AI chatbots that compete with users' friends for conversation and can engage in romantic or sexual roleplay. A Wall Street Journal investigation found that the bots would do the latter with users identifying as minors; Meta has since curbed underage users' access to such behaviors, the company says. With Meta's profits up sharply in 2024 and the company drawing praise from President Trump in January for ending its fact-checking program in the name of 'free expression,' Zuckerberg is sanguine about our AI future. Current stigma around AI friends, he told Patel, will recede as society learns to 'articulate why they are valuable.'
