Do I need a REAL ID in Illinois? Find out here:
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WTVO) — Most Illinois residents will not need a REAL ID, according to Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias, who has created a new website where people can determine whether or not they will need to get the updated identification.
According to Giannoulias, residents can visit the , answer several questions, and find out if they need a REAL ID.
Starting May 7th, 2025, Illinois residents will need a REAL ID instead of a standard driver's license to board a domestic flight or enter certain government buildings, such as a military base or a federal courthouse.
But that doesn't mean all Illinois residents are required to get one.
You will not need a REAL ID to drive, vote, apply for federal benefits like Social Security, enter a federal facility that otherwise does not require an ID (like a post office), go to a hospital, or 'participate in law enforcement proceedings or investigations,' like jury duty.
A valid US Passport will also allow residents to fly.
REAL ID cards look like driver's licenses but contain a gold star, in addition to using technology that makes them more difficult to forge.
After May 7, 2025, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will no longer accept identification that does not meet the standards established in the REAL ID Act. Note, a valid passport or passport card will also be accepted by the TSA.
To obtain a REAL ID, residents must visit a Secretary of State Drivers Service facility with the correct documentation.
The office has also announced new Saturday hours at 12 DMV facilities exclusively for REAL ID services and expanded Saturday hours at six DMVs beginning March 1 through May 10.
'To meet the demand for REAL IDs, we've established Saturday hours at 12 Chicago-area DMVs specifically to serve Illinoisans who need a REAL ID before the May 7 federal enforcement period,' Giannoulias said. 'But before visiting a DMV, I'm imploring everyone to make absolutely certain that you need a REAL ID. Most Illinoisans do not need one before May 7 and they can still get one after that date.'
According to the Illinois Secretary of State, a person must provide:
Proof of identity. This can include: U.S. birth certificate, a U.S. passport, an employment authorization document, a permanent resident card or a foreign passport with an approved I-94 form.
Proof of full Social Security number. This can include a SSN card, a W-2 or a pay stub with full SSN.)
Two current residency documents with the applicant's name. Examples include a utility bill, rental agreement, deed/title or a bank statement
Proof of signature. Examples include A credit/debit card, canceled check or current Illinois ID.
A can be found on the 's website.
Residents have the option to make an appointment at one of 30 appointment facilities. You can make an appointment at this website.
Residents can also visit a walk-in facility and those facilities can be found here.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Stephen Miller's Wife Angrily Ordered Social Security Boss to Go Along With Musk's BS
Stephen Miller's wife berated the head of the Social Security Administration to promote a false claim about rampant fraud on the agency's customer service line that was being pushed by Elon Musk. Katie Miller, a former White House aide who later joined Musk's team full time, called then-acting SSA Commissioner Leland Dudek and bluntly told him to keep repeating that 40 percent of calls to the SSA were from scammers and fraudsters even though the claim had zero basis in fact. 'The number is 40 percent,' Miller told Dudek during an April 1 phone call, according to The New York Times. She insisted that Dudek stick to the figure, despite SSA staff writing a response to correct it, because Donald Trump believed Musk. 'Do not contradict the president,' she said. Katie Miller's loyalty to Musk is hardly surprising. She was reportedly with him 'almost all the time' while both were in the White House, according to The Wall Street Journal, just before Musk had a dramatic public falling-out with Trump. While officially serving as a 'special government employee,' Miller was also on Musk's payroll before exiting alongside him last month—sparking questions about where her true loyalties lay. The Times cited the false SSA scammer stat as yet another example of how Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) pushed misleading claims and fabricated data to justify its cost-cutting crusade. Frank Bisignano, who replaced Dudek as SSA commissioner, even provided some doublespeak by suggesting Musk's 40 percent figure was both inaccurate and true at the same time. 'We're going to be a fact-based, rule-based organization that can count,' Bisignano told the Times while acknowledging the 40 percent figure pushed by Musk was not true. However, in a follow-up statement, Bisignano said: 'The work that DOGE did was 100 percent accurate.' The Times suggests that Musk's 40 percent figure is a 'distortion of a completely different statistic' involving calls in which fraudsters tried to steal money by changing bank account information. In March, the SSA said 40 percent of Social Security direct deposit fraud is linked to people trying to change information over the phone. A number of MAGA figures, including Musk and Vice President JD Vance, twisted this figure to mean 40 percent of all calls to the SSA are fraudulent. SSA staff tried to amend this figure in an April 1 memo to DOGE leaders—the same day of Katie Miller's call—to state that 25 to 30 percent of allegations of direct deposit fraud are for direct deposit changes made over the telephone. According to an analysis by Nextgov/FCW, less than 1 percent of SSA calls show any potential signs of fraud. The SSA and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Beast. In a bizarre aside, the Times also reported that during his brief tenure atop the SSA between February and May, Dudek compared his role to that of Oskar Schindler, the German industrialist who saved more than 1,200 Jews during the Holocaust by employing them in his factories, as detailed in Steven Spielberg's 1993 film. 'Haven't they seen Schindler's List?' Dudek asked staff. 'Don't they know what's going on?'
San Francisco Chronicle
3 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Experts decry new language in tax-cut bill, say only billionaires could challenge U.S. government
Senate Republicans have shelved, at least for now, a provision of President Donald Trump's tax-cut bill that would prevent enforcement of some past court orders against Trump. It has been replaced by a provision that could make it virtually impossible for average Americans to seek injunctions against the government for violating their rights. The new language would require anyone seeking a court order requiring, or prohibiting, actions by the federal government to post a bond that would fully cover the government's potential damages and other costs of complying with the order. Opponents say the costs could amount to at least millions of dollars. Injunctions are judicial orders prohibiting the government, an organization or an individual from taking actions that a judge has found are likely illegal. The bill approved by the House on a 215-214 vote last month, which would cut taxes for the rich and health care for the poor, would also have allowed a judge to find a violator of an injunction in contempt of court, and impose fines or imprisonment, only if the judge had required the other party to post a bond of any amount. Judges commonly issue injunctions without ordering a bond. Because the House bill would have applied, retroactively, to past as well as future injunctions, it could have allowed Trump to ignore existing court orders like those prohibiting him from sending immigrants to prisons in El Salvador without facing penalties. That provision was quietly removed from the bill by Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans last week. In its place is a mandate that would apply to all future injunctions against the federal government and require a bond that would pay for the government's 'costs and damages' in complying with the injunction. If the injunction was upheld on appeal, the individual or group that sought it could recover the costs of the bond. If not, the funds would be transferred to the government. 'Finally, the Senate Judiciary Committee is advancing solutions in the One Big Beautiful Bill to restore the constitutional role of the federal judiciary,' Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the committee chairman, said in a statement, using Trump's label for his tax-cut bill. Grassley said the new provision would 'enforce the existing, lawful requirement that courts impose a bond upfront when attempting to hit the government with a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order that results in costs and damages ultimately sustained by American taxpayers.' A different perspective came from Alicia Bannon, judiciary program director at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice. If this language becomes law, Bannon said, 'it will be financially impossible for ordinary Americans to go to court to protect their rights,' like trying to make sure they receive Social Security payments or are protected against unlawful deportation. Bonds for those orders could cost many millions of dollars, she said. Or much more, said attorneys at the National Women's Law Center, if Trump's deep budget cuts to agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs were challenged by a group of military veterans. 'If this measure stays in the bill, only a billionaire would be able to get prompt relief from the courts when this administration breaks the law,' said Emily Martin, chief program officer at the Washington, D.C.-based law center. And Erwin Chemerinsky, the law school dean at UC Berkeley, said the new provision would also prohibit judges from considering the ability of an individual or group to pay the bond. That would prevent many whose rights have been violated from seeking help from the courts 'at a time when the President is violating the Constitution as never before seen in American history,' he said. Trump has denied violating constitutional rights in his deportation orders, shutdowns of federal agencies and attempts to deny U.S. citizenship to U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants, disputes that are before the federal courts. But a more immediate legal battle could decide the fate of the injunction bond requirement in the tax bill. Because it is a budget-related measure, the legislation can win Senate approval by a majority vote in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats, rather than requiring 60 votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster. The newly added bond requirement, however, would not directly affect the federal budget, although it could lower the government's costs by discouraging lawsuits and limiting injunctions. Democrats could ask the Senate's parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, to advise Senate leaders that the bond limits are not budget-related and should be removed from the bill. The Senate normally follows the parliamentarian's conclusions unless 60 senators disagree, but opponents of the bond requirements say they can't take anything for granted. 'Senate Republicans have overruled the parliamentarian before,' said attorney Alison Gill of the National Women's Law Center. 'It is possible that they may do so to include this dangerous provision.'
Boston Globe
9 hours ago
- Boston Globe
The bureaucrat and the billionaire: Inside DOGE's chaotic takeover of Social Security
'The number is 40%,' insisted Katie Miller, a top administration aide who was working closely with Musk, according to one of the people familiar with the April 1 call. President Donald Trump believed Musk, she said. 'Do not contradict the president.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Throughout the early months of this Trump presidency, Musk and his allies systematically built a false narrative of widespread fraud at the Social Security Administration based on misinterpreted data, using their claims to justify an aggressive effort to gain access to personal information on millions of Americans, a New York Times investigation has found. Advertisement Their work has led to the departures of thousands of employees, thinning an already overstretched workforce and setting off a wave of public anxiety over the state of an agency administering politically sacrosanct retirement benefits that Trump has vowed to protect. Musk has left Washington amid a blowup with Trump, and some of his top aides at DOGE have also departed, leaving federal workers and the public to assess what Musk's tornadolike path through Washington yielded. At Social Security, Musk's efforts amount to a case study in what happened when his team of government novices ran a critical government agency through misinformation and social media blasts. Advertisement The Times' investigation found that Musk became fixated on the program in early February after members of his team misread government spending data — a pivotal and previously unreported moment that DOGE believed had exposed massive fraud inside the agency. DOGE leaders pressured agency executives to hire Akash Bobba, a 21-year-old former intern at Palantir, a data analysis and technology firm, and grant him access to the personal data of every Social Security cardholder despite the executives' concerns that he lacked sufficient training to handle such sensitive information. Musk's deputies became so intent on their work at Social Security that they pushed employees to continue giving them access to sensitive agency data even after a federal judge demanded that DOGE's access be cut off, according to two people familiar with the events. The Supreme Court ruled this month that DOGE's access can resume. This account of DOGE's Social Security takeover is based on interviews with more than 70 current and former employees, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation, and a review of hundreds of pages of internal documents and court records. Thrust into the center of the DOGE drama was Dudek, the acting Social Security commissioner for nearly three months. He told others that he aimed to comply with orders from DOGE and the White House while keeping Social Security from suffering what he saw as potentially disastrous consequences if the DOGE plans for slashing staff and changing policies were fully realized. Advertisement So far the agency's core functions — like sending monthly checks to 74 million Americans — have remained largely intact. But under pressure from Musk's team, nearly half of the Social Security Administration's 140 senior executives, and thousands of employees overall, have taken buyouts or retired. As many as 12% of staff members, out of a bureaucracy that numbered around 57,000 people, are expected to depart their jobs as part of DOGE's cost-cutting plan. To try to make up for the staffing shortfall, the agency has encouraged specialized professionals like lawyers, human resources staff and technologists to take reassignments in customer service jobs — often at higher pay than what the people they're replacing had made. Workers have said they felt pressured to volunteer for reassignments, or else risk being fired later. At the same time, concern over DOGE-induced policy changes has caused members of the public to clog the agency's phone lines and crowd into field offices. More Americans have claimed their Social Security benefits earlier, agency data show, sacrificing higher payments down the road for financial certainty now. And with a record number of retirement claims filed this year, the agency has been battling a growing backlog, internal emails show. Administration officials, in response to questions from the Times, vowed to protect and bolster Social Security. A White House spokesperson, Elizabeth Huston, said that under Trump the agency 'will continue to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse while protecting benefits for eligible Americans.' Musk has cast his efforts to root out waste and fraud as a way to save Social Security, which he has called a 'Ponzi scheme.' Because of DOGE, he told Fox News, 'legitimate recipients of Social Security will receive more money.' Neither he nor Miller, who left the White House alongside him, responded to requests for comment. Advertisement The administration credits DOGE with identifying $1 billion in savings for this year, out of Social Security's operating budget of $14 billion, citing canceled contracts, payroll cuts and other measures. The White House did not provide a detailed accounting of that figure and the Times could not verify it. Dudek was recently placed on administrative leave, and Social Security is now run by Frank Bisignano, a former Wall Street executive who was confirmed as commissioner on May 6. In an interview with the Times this month, Bisignano rejected the idea that DOGE was to blame for problems at Social Security. But Bisignano acknowledged that the 40% figure cited by Musk was incorrect. 'We're going to be a fact-based, rule-based organization that can count,' Bisignano said. In a statement later provided by the agency, Bisignano said: 'The work that DOGE did was 100% accurate.' The Social Security agency did not respond to a request to interview Dudek for this article. On his last day as acting commissioner, he wrote in a New York Post opinion piece that he was proud of the work he and his colleagues had done in service of Trump's mandate to 'be bold, not bureaucratic.' Still, Dudek, 48, has told associates that while he did his best to fend off deeper cuts, he harbors deep misgivings about the effect of DOGE's oversight, according to several people familiar with the conversations. Advertisement Initially, Musk's deputies showed little public interest in Social Security as they looked into other corners of the federal bureaucracy. But in early February, a DOGE team stationed at the Treasury Department gained access to crucial federal data: the payments the Treasury processed on behalf of government agencies. Inside that system, DOGE members saw taxpayer funds flowing to people who appeared not to have Social Security numbers, according to an internal memo viewed by the Times and people briefed on DOGE's analysis of the Treasury data. Other recipients seemed to be dead. None of it was evidence of wrongdoing, Social Security employees would later explain to DOGE. Musk's team simply did not understand the data. But on the social platform X, Musk suddenly began accusing the agency of enabling 'massive fraud,' saying in a flurry of posts starting Feb. 9 that Social Security payments had been going to scammers and 'illegals.' Musk's false claim about scammers making 40% of calls to Social Security's customer service line appeared to be a distortion of a statistic. The DOGE leader was apparently referring to claims his deputies had been making about a far narrower subset of calls in which fraudsters were trying to steal money by changing bank account information. Agency analysts had estimated there were 66,000 such fraud cases a year, according to documents viewed by the Times. The customer service number receives roughly 80 million calls per year. A recent agency memo found only 'minimal instances' of phone fraud. Nonetheless, the Musk claim had been used to justify a policy change greenlit by Dudek: The public would no longer be allowed to file for benefits or change their bank account information over the phone, instead having to do so online or in person. Advertisement The proposed change, which was supposed to take effect on March 31, was met with resistance given the difficulties it was expected to impose on retirees and people with disabilities. Agency officials estimated it would have sent some 4 million customers to field offices that were already short-staffed, and confusion soon spread. Lines at some locations snaked out the door. Among other concerns, many beneficiaries mistakenly believed they needed to prove their identity in person or risk losing their benefits. Within weeks, the proposal was significantly scaled back. But the number of people visiting field offices to change their banking information still rose sharply compared with the previous year, according to internal agency statistics reviewed by the Times. The higher traffic was poorly timed. At least three dozen field offices were estimated to be losing more than a quarter of their staff, agency data show. During one of his last weeks in charge, Dudek drove around the Midwest by himself visiting offices that had been hit especially hard by cuts. At a Milwaukee field office, Dudek stopped a woman driving out of the parking lot, a moment witnessed by the Times. 'Were we able to take care of your needs today?' he asked. 'Not at all,' the woman replied. Dudek apologized as she drove away. This article originally appeared in .
