Airport security to start asking for Real IDs on Wednesday; enforcement likely to lag
May 6—AUGUSTA — Maine officials said Tuesday they had not received a response to their appeal for a delay in enforcement at the state's airports when the federal Real ID deadline arrives Wednesday.
But the Transportation Security Administration is expected to phase in the enforcement nationwide anyway and allow people to fly for a period, even if they don't have the federal identification.
The TSA on Wednesday will begin asking all travelers over the age of 18 to show a Real ID or other form of federal identification, such as a passport, before flying on commercial airlines. The requirement has been in the works for 20 years as a way to improve security.
Maine residents have been slow to get the new Real IDs, in part because of concerns about privacy. The low rate of compliance raised concerns about travel disruptions and airport delays if the mandate is strictly enforced.
Last week, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows and a bipartisan group of state lawmakers serving on the Transportation Committee sent a letter asking the TSA to conduct a soft rollout of the new requirement and not turn people away who don't have a Real ID. The group urged the TSA to give people warnings and ensure that passengers don't experience delays or miss flights.
Although the state had not received a formal response as of Tuesday afternoon, the TSA seems poised to allow people without Real ID to fly.
On Monday, the federal agency sent the state a copy of a warning notice they plan to give people without Real ID, according to a spokesperson for Bellows.
The bright red flyer warns: "The ID you presented is NOT REAL ID-complaint. You will need a REAL ID or other acceptable form of identification for your next flight or you may expect delays."
View this document on Scribd
That is consistent with statements made Tuesday by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem before a congressional panel.
Travelers who lack an identification that complies with the Real ID law "may be diverted to a different line, have an extra step," Noem said.
"But people will be allowed to fly," she added. "We will make sure it's as seamless as possible."
Bellows welcomed the news while also urging Mainers to make an appointment at their local Bureau of Motor Vehicles office to get their Real IDs.
"We are relieved that, according to the flyer we received from the TSA, Mainers without a Real ID or passport will be able to fly at least in the near term and will receive a warning and may be subject to additional screening," Bellows said in statement to the Press Herald Tuesday. "We encourage traveling Mainers to go to TSA.gov for information and to make an appointment at their local BMV to get their Real ID when they get back."
A TSA spokesperson did not respond to questions sent by email this week.
Last week, the TSA indicated that it planned to enforce the Real ID requirement, noting that passengers without appropriate ID might be subject to additional security screening.
"The Real ID Act was passed 20 years ago to address security vulnerability," a spokesperson said in a written statement. "This administration and (the) DHS secretary have determined that it's important that we keep the implementation date of May 7, 2025, and that we enforce the law."
The warning notice provided to Bellows contains a QR code that loads a TSA website with information about acceptable identification and explains the process for passengers without an acceptable ID, including people in the TSA PreCheck program.
A WARNING AND SPECIAL SCREENING
It says passengers will receive a warning and possibly be directed to a special screening area, where they will undergo an identity verification process. Passengers whose identities are verified may also face additional security screening. Those whose identities cannot be verified will not be allowed to proceed.
The TSA says it will accept proper identification, such as a passport, even if it has been expired for up to two years.
As of May 1, only 29% of Maine's more than 1.71 million driver's licenses were Real IDs, according to the state. Maine residents have the choice of getting a standard license or one that meets Real ID security standards.
That's up slightly from 27% in April, when Maine, along with Washington state, had the third-lowest percentage of residents with Real IDs.
Only New Jersey (17%) and Pennsylvania (26%) had lower rates of Real ID uptake, according to an analysis conducted by CBS News. Thirty states have compliance rates under 70%, while a dozen states have rates above 96%.
Noem said Tuesday that 81% of U.S. travelers have IDs that comply with the Real ID requirements.
States have had about two decades to prepare for arrival of Real ID, which was introduced in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York City. But opposition from privacy advocates, including in Maine, stalled the rollout from its original date of Oct. 1, 2020, to next week.
Maine was one of the last states to comply with the federal mandate in 2018.
Standards for a Real ID are consistent across the 50 states and involve a higher level of verification than standard driver's licenses or IDs. An individual must bring proof of identification and citizenship/lawful status, such as a certified birth certificate; two forms proving residency; and a Social Security number. Proof of any legal name changes must also be provided, if applicable.
Real IDs, which have digital photos, can be used with facial recognition software. They also require the digital archiving of identity documents such as birth certificates or Social Security numbers.
The Real ID license costs about $9 per year, or $10 for older adults; a Real ID nondriver card is $5 a year; and a passport costs $16.50 per year for the first 10 years and $13 annually after that.
Copy the Story Link
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Advocates make case for red flag ballot measure in last-minute legislative hearing
Nacole Palmer (right), executive director of the Maine Gun Safety Coalition, sits with Arthur Barnard (center), who held a picture of his son, Lewiston shooting victim Arthur Strout, during a public hearing before the Maine Legislature's Judiciary Committee for a red flag citizen's initiative on June 11, 2025. (Photo by Eesha Pendharkar/ Maine Morning Star) Dozens of people gathered at the State House Wednesday to discuss stricter gun safety regulations that Mainers will be voting on this November. After a failed legislative attempt last year to implement a so-called 'red flag law' — which would allow courts to temporarily take guns away from people perceived as a threat by law enforcement or their family members — a citizen-led initiative collected more than 80,000 signatures to put a referendum question on the ballot for this year. But before the question goes to voters in November, the Legislature is required to hold a public hearing for the referendum: LD 1378. Wednesday's meeting came after Republicans repeatedly questioned why a public hearing was never scheduled for the proposal. After pleas from Republicans, last-minute hearing scheduled for red flag initiative Red flag laws, formally known as extreme risk protection orders, are active in twenty-one states, including four states in New England. Maine is the only state with a yellow flag law. The referendum proposes allowing a family member, household member or law enforcement officer to file a petition, along with an affidavit of facts, for an extreme risk protection order if someone is suspected of posing a significant danger of causing physical injury to themself or another person. That protection order would prohibit the person from purchasing, possessing or controlling a 'dangerous weapon.' A court would be required to schedule a hearing within 14 days of when the petition is filed. If the court finds the individual does pose a significant risk of causing physical injury, the court must issue an order prohibiting them from purchasing, possessing or receiving a dangerous weapon for up to one year. The person would need to immediately surrender any dangerous weapons in their possession to law enforcement. A person could request to have the order terminated if they can show evidence that they no longer pose a risk of physical harm. Conversely, an order can also be renewed for up to one additional year. At the hearing, about 30 speakers highlighted flaws in Maine's current 'yellow flag law,' which allows law enforcement to take guns away from people after a mental health evaluation. Family members of people who died in the October 2023 mass shooting in Lewiston as well as doctors, psychiatrists and school teachers all pointed to issues with the yellow flag law, arguing that stricter regulations could have helped prevent the shooting. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'I get regular calls from people who are desperate for help when a loved one or others are in crisis, who are dangerous and harmful firearms that are not getting help from the police. I have to explain to them that there's nothing that I can do as an individual on this kind of advocacy,' said Nacole Palmer, executive director of the Maine Gun Safety Coalition, which collected signatures for the citizen initiative. 'But there's something that we can all do together this November by passing this proven, life-saving law that empowers family members and will help keep our schools and communities safe,' she added. Mental health professionals and doctors from several national organizations said the current law's required mental health evaluation weakens it. 'Ultimately, family members know their loved ones best. They are first to notice when something is wrong and when someone they love is wrong,' said Madeleine DesFosses, speaking on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Maine Medical Association. 'We need to ensure that an efficient process is available, and that makes it easier to get dangerous weapons away from someone.' Critics of the bill included members of law enforcement, who said the yellow flag law is working well and that allowing courts to directly take away weapons makes enforcement of the red flag law more dangerous for law enforcement officers who have to confiscate them. Some opponents also argued that it's unconstitutional and lacks due process. If the referendum passes, it would not replace Maine's current law, but would be an additional tool police or the general public can use to temporarily confiscate weapons. But Lt. Michael Johnston of the Maine State Police argued that having two different avenues is unnecessary, since the current system is working well, as evidenced by the increase in frequency of use. Maine medical community backs proposed red flag law 'I think this is going to be a heightened risk of service for law enforcement and for the respondent,' Johnston said, testifying in opposition to the referendum. 'You get diminished returns if you have similar processes in place, people aren't sure which ones to take advantage of.' The public hearing included lengthy discussion on the effectiveness and barriers of the current law. Since the Lewiston shooting, the use of the yellow flag law has skyrocketed. Law enforcement used it more times in the first two months of this year than the first three years after its passing in 2020. So far, there have been 881 total applications, 800 of which were after the October 2023 shooting, according to Maine State Police. Johnston said he is only aware of two times that state police were unsuccessful in temporarily confiscating weapons under the yellow flag law rules. But that use remains high because the yellow flag law 'failed so spectacularly that 18 Mainers were slaughtered,' Palmer said. 'And the people of Maine, including our law enforcement, are so desperate to make sure that kind of thing doesn't happen again.' Johnston said 'Lewiston was a wake up call for everyone,' and that law enforcement is already focused on better training and implementation of the yellow flag law. Adding another tool that doesn't work as well to the tool chest, he said, 'can detract or diminish from what's already working.' Similar legislation was introduced last session, but it died without a vote in the full Senate or House of Representatives. That bill was sponsored by Sen. Rachel Talbot Ross (D-Cumberland), who at the time was speaker of the House. A lengthy budget debate on the last day of the session upended plans for the chambers to take it up. At the time, the measure was particularly popular among Maine's medical community which praised the proposal for its efforts to address the public health crisis of gun violence without stigmatizing mental illness. Like last year's proposal, the red flag bill heard Wednesday is up against the legislative clock. Though lawmakers are no longer beholden to the statutory adjournment date of June 18, given that they are technically in a special session, leaders have indicated they intend to stick with that deadline. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
E&E News
10 hours ago
- E&E News
House panel OKs water aid, river commissions bills
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee advanced two bills Wednesday that would scrutinize regional conservation commissions and an EPA water assistance program. The 'Mid-Atlantic River Basin Commissions Review Act,' H.R. 3428, from Rep. Robert Bresnahan (R-Pa.), and the 'Water Resources Technical Assistance Review Act,' H.R. 3427, from Rep. David Taylor (R-Ohio), both progressed out of committee with bipartisan support. The commissions review bill would direct the Government Accountability Office to review the activities, funding and transparency of the Delaware River Basin Commission, Susquehanna River Basin Commission and Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. Advertisement All three were set up by Congress decades ago to better manage those rivers and their tributaries, which millions depend on for their drinking water.
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - ‘Politics' is not a valid reason to abort the TSA's Quiet Skies program
The Trump administration announced on June 5 that it is ending the Transportation Security Administration's Quiet Skies program. Launched in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Quiet Skies focused on surveilling and tracking people based on their behavior and other information that made them an elevated risk to the air system. Issues cited to support its termination include its costs and purported ineffectiveness in identifying any terrorists. However, the real reason may be that the administration believed it was misused by the Biden administration, targeting former President Joe Biden's adversaries while giving his friends a free pass. Let's put the politics aside. Although the program certainly required long-overdue adjustments, as prior investigations by the Office of the Inspector General recommended, it complete abandonment is not in the interest of securing the nation's air system. The TSA's federal air marshal program and Quiet Skies program are closely intertwined. Air marshals are strategically deployed on the ground (including at airports) to make behavioral observations of passengers, and on flights based on the risk profile of its passenger pool. The federal air marshal program has been under scrutiny for some time. Given that the team of air marshals must be deployed to cover flights that are deemed high risk, scheduling them has made their utilization challenging. Many serve on international flights with origination and destinations around the world, often demanding they work long hours, which makes it difficult to schedule much-needed downtime. Since there have been no reports of federal air marshals apprehending any suspected bad actors on flights based on the Quiet Skies watch list, some may argue that in the interest of saving money (to the tune of $200 million annually), it would be reasonable to end Quiet Skies entirely. That is like saying a community should cut its fire department because it has never put out any fires. It is shortsighted at best. Indeed, the effectiveness of the Quiet Skies and federal air marshal programs may lie in their deterrence benefit — admittedly can be challenging to quantify — and the unpredictability that they inject into aviation security operations. Moreover, since the Transportation Security Administration's aviation security strategy embodies a disparate collection of layers — some of which are highly visible, like the physical screening operations at airport security checkpoints, and some of which are hidden from most travelers, like risk-based security strategies including the Secure Flight program — the law of unintended consequences means that removing any one layer must be done thoughtfully and cautiously. David Pekoske was relieved of his duties as the TSA administrator in January, meaning the organization has been rudderless, without significant changes made, ever since. If strategic or tactical changes are to be made, a new administrator should be in place to ensure that the new protections are appropriate to maintain the security of the air system, while serving the best interests of all travelers. Past assessments of the Quiet Skies program have uncovered many deficiencies. Yet none of the points raised have captured the deterrence benefit of maintaining a Quiet Skies watchlist and deploying federal air marshals on flights based on such information. The issue of concern here is when reasons for its dismantling are based on poorly framed justifications, including politics. In the current divisive climate in Washington, politics has become the backstop reason anytime one party wants to change something that they perceive has had a negative effect on them or a positive benefit for their opposition. Clearly, changes in the federal air marshal and Quiet Skies program have been needed for some time. Sunsetting the Quiet Skies program before the TSA had the opportunity to fully address and vet all such concerns is premature. The agency not having a permanent administrator in place further exacerbates an already tenuous decision. With one fewer security layer now available, the air system may indeed be no more risky, as the secretary of Homeland Security claims. It is, however, difficult to believe that it will be more secure. Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a professor of computer science in the Grainger College of Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He applies his expertise in data-driven risk-based decision-making to evaluate and inform public policy. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
