I already have REAL ID but have second thoughts, can I go back?
With the deadline for obtaining a REAL ID just one week away, some who are wary of making the change or who have already done so and now regret their decision may be asking if they can return to alternative forms of ID.
For many across the country, the short answer is yes. Many states will continue to offer non-REAL ID forms of identification that can be obtained the next time someone needs to renew their ID.
However, this comes with the significant caveat that, starting May 7, only REAL ID-compliant forms of identification will be acceptable for federal purposes such as boarding domestic flights or accessing federal facilities.
It has been 20 years since Congress passed the REAL ID Act, mandating states to implement certain minimum-security standards for issuing IDs. A REAL ID is not a national identification card but rather an ID issued by the state in compliance with certain federal standards.
After a series of delays in implementing the law, the Department of Homeland Security under the Trump administration finally set a deadline for all adults wishing to travel by plane or access federal facilities to obtain a REAL ID-compliant identification card by May 7.
The Trump administration argued that the deadline had already been postponed long enough, asserting that travelers had ample time to gather the necessary documents for the more rigorously verified form of identification.
Some critics, however, have claimed that REAL ID presents a risk to citizens' privacy, while some on the left have claimed the additional documentation to obtain the card presents an undue difficulty for certain demographics, such as the poor or minorities.
Though it will vary from state to state, if someone with a REAL ID has regrets, all they have to do is opt for another form of identification the next time they are due for renewal.
However, Simon Hankinson, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, explained to Fox News Digital that the "difference between the REAL ID version and the kind of noncompliant version is not that big."
Hankinson explained that to obtain a REAL ID, all that is needed is an extra form of documentation beyond what is normally required for an identification card.
"Let's say I apply for a regular driver's license. I need proof of residence. I've got a bill from my electricity company and my cable company, and I've got my birth certificate. Okay, that's what I give to get my regular I.D. And then in order to get the REAL ID, I have to add a passport or a social security card," he said.
With this in mind, for many, the supposed benefits of opting out of REAL ID are likely not worth the drawbacks.
Meanwhile, Hankinson said that the REAL ID's benefit to national security is significant.
He pointed to the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, in which several of the al Qaeda terrorists involved had obtained valid state licenses, which were accepted for boarding their flights.
"They did the 911 Commission report, and they realized one of many mistakes that had been made and one of many loopholes was that two of the hijackers, at least the two that the crashed the plane at the Pentagon had been able to get a driver's license in California," he said. "As a national security issue, you can't go to other countries and just get a driver's license with zero ID. I mean, it just doesn't work that way. So, I think it's about time we caught up."
In response to concerns about security and privacy, Hankinson said the government will have to be held to the highest standards to uphold citizens' privacy. Still, he compared the risk-reward scenario posed to the nation by REAL ID to nuclear power.
"If it's done right, you can mitigate the risks, and you can have, like France, 75, 80 percent of your power from nuclear power plants," he said. "If you cut corners, and you put the wrong people in charge and you take risks, then you end up with Chernobyl."
All in all, Hankinson said, "I think really this adds a little bit of hassle … but it gives us a lot in exchange."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
34 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Marines take over some security in LA while cities across US prep for ‘No Kings' rallies
LOS ANGELES (AP) — After a week of protests over federal immigration raids, about 200 Marines moved into Los Angeles on Friday to guard a federal building in the city while communities across the country prepped for what's anticipated to be a nationwide wave of large-scale demonstrations against President Donald Trump's polices this weekend. The Marine troops with rifles, combat gear and walkie-talkies took over some posts from National Guard members who were deployed to the city after the protests erupted last week . Those protests sparked dozens more over several days around the country, with some leading to clashes with police and hundreds of arrests. The Marines had not been seen on Los Angeles city streets until Friday. They finished training on civil disturbance and have started to replace Guard members protecting the federal building west of downtown, so the Guard soldiers can be assigned to protect law enforcement officers on raids, the commander in charge of 4,700 troops deployed to the LA protests said. The Marines moved into Los Angeles before Saturday's planned 'No Kings' demonstrations nationally against Trump's policies, which will also happen the same day as a military parade in Washington, D.C., when troops will march and tanks will rumble through the streets of the nation's capital. The Marines' arrival also came a day after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked a federal judge's order that had directed Trump to return control of Guard troops to California. The judge had ruled the Guard deployment was illegal, violated the Tenth Amendment, which defines the power between state and federal governments, and exceeded Trump's statutory authority. The judge did not rule on the presence of the Marines. Military mission Some 2,000 National Guard troops were deployed to Los Angeles this week. Hundreds have provided protection to immigration agents making arrests. Another 2,000 Guard members were notified of deployment earlier this week. None of the military troops will be detaining anyone, Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, the commander of Task Force 51 who is overseeing the 4,700 combined troops, said. 'I would like to emphasize that the soldiers will not participate in law enforcement activities,' Sherman said. 'Rather, they'll be focused on protecting federal law enforcement personnel.' Roughly 500 National Guard members have been used to provide security on immigration raids after undergoing expanded instruction, legal training and rehearsals with the agents doing the enforcement before they go on those missions. By mid-afternoon Friday, more than a dozen Marines were stationed outside the 17-story Wilshire Federal Building, replacing some members of the National Guard at various entrances. They mostly appeared to be checking tickets from members of the public who were there to renew their passports. The building is the same place Democratic U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla on Thursday was forcefully removed from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's news conference and handcuffed by officers as he tried to speak up about the immigration raids. There were no protesters around the building. Occasionally, a passing driver shouted from their window, registering a mix of anger and support for the military presence. Sherman said the U.S. Marine Corps is responsible for guarding U.S. embassies overseas so they are well-trained on how to defend a federal building. California vs. Trump California Gov. Gavin Newsom has called the troop deployment a 'serious breach of state sovereignty' and a power grab by Trump, and he has gone to court to stop it. The president has cited a legal provision that allows him to mobilize federal service members when there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' A federal judge said in a ruling late Thursday that what is happening in Los Angeles does not meet the definition of a rebellion and issued an order to return control of the Guard to California before the appeals court stopped it from going into effect Friday. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump thanked the appeals court Friday morning. 'If I didn't send the Military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now,' he said. The court will hold a hearing on the matter Tuesday. Under federal law, active-duty forces are prohibited by law from conducting law enforcement. The Trump administration has characterized the city as a 'war zone,' which local authorities dispute. Recent protesters have drawn a few hundred attendees who marched through downtown chanting, dancing and poking fun at the Trump administration's characterization of the city. There have been about 500 arrests since Saturday, mostly for failing to leave the area at the request of law enforcement, according to the police. There have been a handful of more serious charges, including for assault against officers and for possession of a Molotov cocktail and a gun. Nine officers have been hurt, mostly with minor injuries. An 8 p.m. curfew has been in place in a 1-square-mile (2.5-square-kilometer) section of downtown. The city of Los Angeles encompasses roughly 500 square miles (1,295 square kilometers). Protests have ended after a few hours with arrests this week largely for failure to disperse. No Kings The 'No Kings' demonstrations are planned in nearly 2,000 locations around the country , according to the movement's website. A flagship march and rally is planned for Philadelphia, but no protests are scheduled to take place in Washington, D.C., where the military parade will be held. Participants are expected to seek to de-escalate any potential confrontation, organizers say. In Florida, state Attorney General James Uthmeier warned that any protesters who become violent will be dealt with harshly. States face questions on deploying troops Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, has put 5,000 National Guard members on standby in cities where demonstrations are planned. In other Republican-controlled states, governors have not said when or how they may deploy troops. A group of Democratic governors in a statement called Trump's deployments 'an alarming abuse of power.' Washington state Gov. Bob Ferguson took to social media Friday to call for peaceful protests over the weekend, to ensure the military is not sent to the state. 'Don't give him an excuse to try and federalize the National Guard like he did in California,' he said. Military parade The military parade in Washington which Trump had unsuccessfully pushed for during his first term — will also feature concerts, fireworks, NFL players, fitness competitions and displays all over the National Mall for daylong festivities. The celebration Saturday also happens to be Trump's birthday. The Army expects as many as 200,000 people could attend and says putting on the celebration will cost an estimated $25 million to $45 million . ___ Taxin reported from Santa Ana, California. Baldor contributed from Washington. 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 .
Hamilton Spectator
34 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
2 women marry in Mexico's embassy in Guatemala fueling a debate over same-sex marriage
GUATEMALA CITY (AP) — Two Mexican women were married inside the grounds of Mexico's embassy in Guatemala on Friday, sparking anger in a nation that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage and debate over diplomatic sovereignty. The ceremony held in the embassy gardens was intended to celebrate Pride Month , which is celebrated every June, and the consulate said the marriage marked a step toward inclusion, respect and equality for all. 'We celebrate love without borders,' wrote the embassy in a post on the social media platform X. 'This is the first civil wedding of a same-sex couple at the Embassy of Mexico in Guatemala. It's a right granted to all individuals when both are Mexican citizens.' Shortly after, the ceremony sparked an outcry among conservative politicians in Guatemala, a largely Catholic country and one of a handful in Latin America that still doesn't recognize same-sex marriages. While such marriages aren't explicitly prohibited, Guatemalan law only refers to unions between a man and a woman. Allan Rodríguez, the head of the VAMOS party bloc and ally of former president Alejandro Giammattei, was among those to reject the wedding, writing in a statement that 'although the act may be protected under external jurisdictions, it clearly contradicts Guatemala's current legal framework.' According to the congressman, the properties where embassies are located 'are not foreign territory; they merely enjoy diplomatic privileges' and therefore are not a part of the Mexican state. He claimed considering them as such would 'violate constitutional principles of sovereignty, territorial unity, and the rule of law.' Rodríguez, a former president of Congress, is sanctioned by the United States for obstructing anti-corruption efforts and undermining democracy in Guatemala. The office of progressive President Bernardo Arévalo said that under international law embassies like Mexico's 'have territorial immunity and operate under the jurisdiction of the state they represent.' 'In this case, it is an activity carried out by the Mexican Consulate in Guatemala and aimed at Mexican citizens. Therefore, it is exclusively the responsibility of the Government of Mexico, through its diplomatic representation, to comment or speak on the matter,' the embassy statement said. Still, debate only continued on, with Elmer Palencia, a congressman for the VALOR party, created by the daughter of a former dictator, called the marriage, 'not an act of inclusion, but a provocation.' 'Out of respect for the host country, Mexico should refrain from that narrative. Guatemalan sovereignty and social institutions deserve that respect,' he said. Constitutional lawyer Edgar Ortíz contradicted the conservative politicians, saying the marriage doesn't violate Guatemala's sovereignty and complies with the Vienna Convention, which establishes that what happens on diplomatic premises 'are not subject to the host state's jurisdiction.' He noted that Guatemala's constitution establishes that the country will govern following international principles. 'In no way are Guatemala's laws being altered; the effects of this marriage will occur in Mexico, which does recognize same-sex marriage,' he said. 'Rather,' he added, 'it is the Guatemalan lawmakers who are violating sovereignty, by interfering in Mexico's affairs and trying to tell them what they can or cannot do. That seems far more discourteous.' 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 .
The Hill
34 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump clears path for Nippon Steel investment in US Steel, so long as it fits the government's terms
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order paving the way for a Nippon Steel investment in U.S. Steel, so long as the Japanese company complies with a 'national security agreement' submitted by the federal government. Trump's order didn't detail the terms of the national security agreement. But U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel said in a joint statement that the agreement stipulates that approximately $11 billion in new investments will be made by 2028 and includes giving the U.S. government a 'golden share' — essentially veto power to ensure the country's national security interests are protected. 'We thank President Trump and his Administration for their bold leadership and strong support for our historic partnership,' the two companies said. 'This partnership will bring a massive investment that will support our communities and families for generations to come. We look forward to putting our commitments into action to make American steelmaking and manufacturing great again.' The companies have completed a U.S. Department of Justice review and received all necessary regulatory approvals, the statement said. 'The partnership is expected to be finalized promptly,' the statement said. The companies offered few details on how the golden share would work and what investments would be made. Trump said Thursday that he would as president have 'total control' of what U.S. Steel did as part of the investment. Trump said then that the deal would preserve '51% ownership by Americans.' The Japan-based steelmaker had been offering nearly $15 billion to purchase the Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel in a merger that had been delayed on national security concerns starting during Joe Biden's presidency. Trump opposed the purchase while campaigning for the White House, yet he expressed optimism in working out an arrangement once in office. 'We have a golden share, which I control,' said Trump, although it was unclear what he meant by suggesting that the federal government would determine what U.S. Steel does as a company. Trump added that he was 'a little concerned' about what presidents other than him would do with their golden share, 'but that gives you total control.' Still, Nippon Steel has never said it was backing off its bid to buy and control U.S. Steel as a wholly owned subsidiary. The proposed merger had been under review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, during the Trump and Biden administrations. The order signed Friday by Trump said the CFIUS review provided 'credible evidence' that Nippon Steel 'might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States,' but such risks might be 'adequately mitigated' by approving the proposed national security agreement. The order doesn't detail the perceived national security risk and only provides a timeline for the national security agreement. The White House declined to provide details on the terms of the agreement. The order said the draft agreement was submitted to U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel on Friday. The two companies must successfully execute the agreement as decided by the Treasury Department and other federal agencies that are part CFIUS by the closing date of the transaction. Trump reserves the authority to issue further actions regarding the investment as part of the order he signed on Friday. ___ Associated Press writer Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pa., contributed to this report.
