REAL ID Louisiana: 1.2M residents make upgrade before May deadline
BATON ROUGE, La. (Louisiana First) — More than 1.2 million Louisiana residents have gotten REAL ID-compliant driver's licenses or ID cards before the May 7 deadline.
The Louisiana Office of Motor Vehicles (OMV) offices and Public Tag Agents (PTAs) processed more than 97,000 REAL ID applications in April 2025. This is an 8% rise from last year, setting a new monthly record.
'This past month has been exceptional in delivering the services our citizens deserve. I am immensely proud of our dedicated team for their hard work and commitment,' Interim OMV Commissioner Bryan J. Adams said. 'I also want to extend my heartfelt gratitude to our residents for their patience and understanding as we navigate this process together and work toward a better future for all.'
Officials said more people joined after increasing public awareness and offering extended office hours. Several OMV offices across the state opened on Saturdays to get people REAL-ID ready.
As REAL ID deadline looms, here's what happens if you don't have one
REAL ID was created after the 9/11 Commission's recommendations as a federal security standard. Starting May 7, a REAL ID or another approved form of ID, such as a passport, military ID or permanent resident card, will be required to:
Board federally regulated commercial flights.
Enter federal buildings.
Visit nuclear power plants.
Flying without a REAL ID? Here's what to expect
REAL IDs are marked with a gold star in the top corner. If you don't have one, you'll need to bring another accepted form of identification instead. The Department of Homeland Security recommends checking with the federal agency you plan to visit to make sure you bring the right ID.
OMV offices across Louisiana will continue to offer REAL IDs even after the May 7 enforcement date. Applicants must show proof of identity, evidence of lawful status in the country, birth date, social security number and two proofs of principal residence.
Click here for more about REAL ID requirements or make an OMV appointment online.
Louisiana OMV sees improvement after system fix, Gov. Landry says
What is thunderstorm asthma?
Collins has 'serious objections' to parts of Trump 2026 budget
Tickets for 52nd Annual Bayou Classic now on sale
REAL ID Louisiana: 1.2M residents make upgrade before May deadline
Louisiana whooping cough cases for 2025 higher than last year's total, LDH reports
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
The Hill
15 hours ago
- The Hill
Oil and gas lawsuits are threatening Trump's energy agenda
Energy has been a highlight of the Trump 2.0 presidency. But the administration needs more cooperation from Lansing and Baton Rouge to bring its ambitious goals to fruition. Michigan and Louisiana may not have a lot in common, but there are few places in the U.S. more critical to the Trump administration's energy agenda. Michigan, an industrial powerhouse, needs abundant affordable energy to fuel the 'manufacturing boom' that the White House is promising. Louisiana, a leading liquid natural gas exporter, is key to Team Trump's goal to make the U.S. the signature supplier of energy to domestic industries and foreign allies. Yet politicized lawsuits against oil and gas companies are proliferating in both states, backed by rivals and fair weather friends whose lawfare crusades are undercutting President Trump's energy dominance agenda. For Michigan's Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Louisiana's Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, it's time to decide whether to get behind America First energy policies or side with powerful forces within their states that are pushing in the opposite direction. Whitmer, widely viewed as a 2028 Democratic presidential hopeful, nonetheless quotes Trump's call for a 'golden age of American manufacturing.' During her tenure as governor, Michigan has leaned into aspirational net-zero timelines, discouraged in-state gas production and created roadblocks to energy infrastructure. But there's also the legal offensive. Michigan's Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) continues to defend her six year-old lawsuit to shut down Enbridge's Line 5 pipeline, which supplies more than half of Michigan propane use, while she taps contingency lawyers to sue oil and gas companies for far-flung climate-related damages. That's not the posture of a state preparing to power an industrial renaissance. Meanwhile, Landry touts Trump's energy dominance agenda, yet at the same time supports dubious claims against oil and gas companies in his state. As state attorney general, Landry entered a joint prosecution agreement with trial lawyers seeking to hold the oil and gas industry liable for 2,000 square miles of Louisiana wetlands and barrier islands lost to coastal erosion since the 1930s. As governor, he has taken in more campaign contributions from trial lawyers than his Democratic predecessor. The support has paid dividends. A lawyer from the Landry administration backed up the trial lawyers who recently won a $744.6 million verdict against Chevron in a coastal erosion case. Although research shows that leveeing of the Mississippi is the main culprit, oil and gas companies are now defending 43 lawsuits in Louisiana blaming them for coastal land loss. Despite the obvious federal issues at play, the trial lawyers behind the cases are trying to keep the litigation in friendly state courts — precisely the kind of jurisdictional charade that Trump's order against state interference with American energy dominance was designed to prevent. Just this week, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review whether these cases belong in federal court where the oil and gas companies can get a fair hearing. If Landry and the trial lawyers dodge federal jurisdiction, it will be 'pay, baby, pay,' not 'drill baby drill' for oil and gas companies — much to the chagrin of the Trump administration and the detriment of the nation's energy consumers. Unless Team Trump follows through on its promise to defend domestic energy producers from state overreach, U.S. energy dominance will remain elusive. Taking on deep blue states over their climate lawfare is a solid first step, but it's not enough. The next time that Whitmer visits the Oval Office, Trump should remind her that Michigan consumes almost five times more energy than it produces. If the manufacturing golden age returns to Michigan, the demand side of that equation will only rise. The state's leadership needs to bury its green utopianism, drop its anti-pipeline crusade, and start producing more reliable and affordable energy needed to power autonomous vehicles, chip fabs, AI data centers and other industries that Whitmer is trying to attract. Likewise, Team Trump needs to tell Landry to put the energy dominance agenda ahead of his alliance with powerful trial lawyers. If Landry is unwilling to pull out of the retroactive cases against oil and gas companies, the Trump Department of Justice should intervene and defend federal energy policy interests against Louisiana's egregious overreach. For Louisiana's liquefied natural gas sector to propel U.S. energy dominance in the future, the state needs a predictable legal system, not one where industry is at the mercy of politically-connected trial lawyers. The key to the Trump administration's early energy successes has been the rollback of federal rules like the Biden administration ban on liquefied natural gas exports. Unleashing American energy over the long term, however, requires the states to push in the same direction. For states like Michigan and Louisiana, that doesn't require a new vision. It means having the political courage to make it real. Michael Toth is a practicing lawyer and a research fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.
Washington Post
a day ago
- Washington Post
New Yorkers might vote for a socialist mayor, but a Muslim?
When hijacked airplanes were flown into the World Trade Center in 2001, New York's popular mayoral candidate Zohran Kwame Mamdani was just 9 years old. On that otherwise bluebird day, he had been in the United States only two years, after moving to New York with his parents from Kampala, Uganda. Seventeen years later, he became an American citizen, after completing a degree in Africana studies at Bowdoin College.
CNN
a day ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump may authorize strikes against Iran. Can he just do that?
The question being projected by the White House as President Donald Trump mulls an offensive strike against Iran is: Will he or won't he? It has blown right by something that should come earlier in the process, but hasn't gotten much attention: Can he? Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle — but mostly Democrats at this point — have proposals to limit Trump's ability to simply launch strikes against Iran. 'We shouldn't go to war without a vote of Congress,' Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, told CNN's Jake Tapper on 'The Lead' Wednesday. Kaine has been trying for more than a decade to repeal the post-9/11 authorization for the use of military force that presidents from both parties have leaned on to launch military strikes. The strictest reading of the Constitution suggests Trump, or any president, should go to Congress to declare war before attacking another country. But Congress hasn't technically declared war since World War II and the US has been involved in a quite a few conflicts in the intervening generations. Presidents from both parties have argued they don't need congressional approval to launch military strikes. But longer-scale wars have been authorized through a series of joint resolutions, including the 2001 authorization for the use of military force against any country, person or group associated with the 9/11 terror attacks or future attacks. There's no indication Iran was involved with 9/11, so it would be a stretch to argue that vote, taken nearly a quarter of a century ago, would justify a strike against Iran today. But that vote has been used to justify scores of US military actions in at least 15 countries across the world. The Trump administration has said recent assessments by US intelligence agencies from earlier this year that Iran is not close to a nuclear weapon are outdated and that Iran's close proximity to developing a nuclear weapon justifies a quicker effort to denude its capability, perhaps with US bunker-busting bombs. Israel apparently lacks the ability to penetrate Iran's Fordow nuclear site, which is buried in a mountain. Prev Next Kaine, on the other hand, wants to hear more, and requiring a vote in Congress would force Trump to justify an attack. 'The last thing we need is to be buffaloed into a war in the Middle East based on facts that prove not to be true,' Kaine said. 'We've been down that path to great cost, and I deeply worry that it may happen again.' In 1973, responding to the disastrous war in Vietnam, Congress overrode President Richard Nixon's veto to pass an important piece of legislation, the War Powers Resolution, that sought to rein in presidents regarding the use of military force. The War Powers Resolution seeks to limit the president's ability to deploy the military to three types of situations: a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. An effort to end Iran's nuclear program would not seem to fall into any of those buckets, but Trump has plenty of lawyers at the Department of Justice and the Pentagon who will find a way to justify his actions. The law also requires Trump to 'consult' with Congress, but that could be interpreted in multiple ways. The law does clearly require the president to issue a report to Congress within 48 hours of using military force. It also seeks to limit the time he has to use force before asking Congress for permission. The Reiss Center at New York University has a database of more than 100 such reports presidents from both parties have sent to Congress over the past half-century after calling up the US military. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, cite the War Powers Resolution in their proposal to bar Trump from using the US military against Iran without congressional approval or to respond to an attack. 'This is not our war,' Massie said in a post on X. 'Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.' Nixon clearly disagreed with the War Powers Resolution, and subsequent presidents from both parties have also questioned it. For instance, when Trump ordered the killing of a top Iranian general who was visiting Iraq in 2020, lawyers for the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, in what we know from a heavily redacted legal opinion, argued the president inherently had authority to order the strike under the Constitution if he determined that doing so was in the national interest. A similar memo sought to justifying US airstrikes in Syria during Trump's first term. That 'national interest' test is all but a blank check, which seems on its face to be inconsistent with the idea in the Constitution that Congress is supposed to declare war, as the former government lawyers and law professors Jack Goldsmith and Curtis Bradley argue at Lawfare. The OLC memo that justified the killing of the Iranian general suggests Congress can control the president by cutting off funding for operations and also that the president must seek congressional approval before 'the kind of protracted conflict that would rise to the level of war.' Presidents have frequently carried out air strikes, rather than the commitment of ground forces, without congressional approval. The OLC memo that justified the strike against the Iranian general in Iraq also argued Trump could rely on a 2002 vote by which Congress authorized the use of military force in Iraq. That 2002 authorization for use of military force (AUMF) was actually repealed in 2023, with help from then-Sen. JD Vance. OLC memos have tried to define war as 'prolonged and substantial military engagements, typically involving exposure of U.S. military personnel to significant risk over a substantial period.' Air strikes, one could imagine OLC lawyers arguing, would not rise to that level. What is a war? What are hostilities? These seem like semantic debates, but they complicate any effort to curtail presidential authority, as Brian Egan and Tess Bridgeman, both former national security lawyers for the government, argued in trying to explain the law at Just Security. The most effective way to stop a president would be for Congress to cut off funds, something it clearly can do. But that is very unlikely in the current climate, when Republicans control both the House and the Senate.
