Real ID: Why No One Seems To Be Ready After 20 Years of Warning
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
On Wednesday, May 7, the long-anticipated implementation of Real ID laws finally came into effect, and Americans now need a specific identification on their driver's license (or a passport) for air travel.
What is Real ID?
The Real ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, establishes minimum security standards for state-issued driver's licenses and identification cards.
As of May 7, 2025, travelers need a Real ID-compliant license or another accepted form of identification, like a passport, to board federally regulated commercial aircraft and access certain federal facilities.
Real ID-compliant cards are marked with a star at the top and require applicants to provide documents that prove their identity, Social Security number and lawful status in the U.S.
Stock image of an airport sign with 'REAL ID' on it.
Stock image of an airport sign with 'REAL ID' on it.
Photo by Tanaonte / Getty Images
"Real ID helps ensure that travelers are who they say they are and prevents fraud by criminals, terrorists, and illegal aliens," Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem explained in a press release.
"Enforcing federal law will help keep American travelers safe."
Delays in Implementation
The implementation of the Real ID Act has faced multiple delays since its passage in 2005.
The federal government extended the compliance deadline several times due to logistical challenges and public readiness. Initially set to go into effect in 2008, the deadline was postponed repeatedly.
One of the major reasons for these delays has been the uneven pace at which states upgraded their ID systems to meet the law's stringent documentation and verification requirements.
Millions of Americans lacked Real IDs, which would have created major travel disruptions.
The COVID-19 pandemic further complicated the issue, as DMVs closed down and limited their appointments. In 2020 and again in 2022, the DHS cited pandemic-related challenges when extending the deadline.
Social Media Reacts
Posters on the Reddit forum r/TSA debated whether people should have been prepared for the change.
One user noted that the Real ID change has been in the works for a very long time, adding that while they have a passport, they "feel for others" who might not be prepared.
"Some people were like 2 years old in 2005, and people didn't bring this deadline stuff back up until people started saying 'May 7th,'" they wrote.
"All while the past 20 years, we have been getting state IDs we thought were going to be useful because DMVs and other offices weren't pushing them when we were getting IDs."
"Why are any states even giving out non-Real IDs anymore?"
"I literally just renewed my license and didn't realize until after they didn't give me a Real ID," another user commented. "Had to go back and they were like, 'Well, you didn't ask for one.'
"Why are any states even giving out non-Real IDs anymore?"
In a message to Newsweek, the user said they have Global Entry, a military retired ID, a passport and a federal employee ID.
"I just didn't expect Washington to make me jump through extra hoops," they wrote.
"They could have had some kind of warning on the website that says: 'This isn't Real ID compliant' or something. I might have missed it, but I'm extremely computer competent, so if I missed it, what about everyone else?"
In the Reddit thread, a Virginia resident noted, "When I last renewed my license 7 years ago, they didn't even mention Real ID, and when I renewed this year, it was framed as 'it's cool if you don't want to bother with the extra effort'."
"Honestly? A lot of people don't like the idea and were hoping it would go away before it ever went into effect," another Redditor added.
Some users, however, were less sympathetic.
"Nahhh, there were literal signs at airports throughout the years," one wrote. "I vividly remember going through TSA security and reading 'REAL ID 2016'."
Newsweek reached out to posters requesting further comment on Friday, May 9.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
12 minutes ago
- Axios
U.S. has "no interest" in putting troops on the ground in Iran, Vance says
Vice President Vance said Sunday that the United States doesn't plan to send ground troops into Iran and there is "no interest" in engaging in a "protracted conflict" with the nation. The big picture: Vance and other Trump administration officials appeared on Sunday shows to praise President Trump 's decision to carry out a series of airstrikes against three Iranian nuclear sites, while reassuring Americans that the mission — dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer — isn't the launching point for a wider conflict. Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," Vance called the mission a "precise, a very surgical strike tailored to an American national interest" — preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon — and that he had "no fear" of a drawn-out conflict. Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed the sentiment on CBS' "Face the Nation," saying that there are no plans from the U.S. to engage in further attacks on Iran unless they "mess around" and attack Americans or U.S. military sites. What they're saying: Rubio said Sunday that the U.S. carried out the attack after efforts to negotiate with Iran stalled, but that Trump administration officials are "prepared to talk to them tomorrow." Both men also dismissed the notion that the U.S. is at war with Iran, with Vance stating that the war is with Iran's nuclear program. "We destroyed the Iranian nuclear program. I think we set that program back substantially," Vance told NBC News' Kristen Welker. Zoom out: Vance and Rubio were unable to confirm the extent of the damage done to the nuclear sites, but Iran Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei told CNN that the strike was a "betrayal of diplomacy." "No one knows what will happen next, but what is sure is that the responsibility of the consequences of this war must be borne by the United States and Israel," he said. Bagahei refused to say how Iran might respond to the U.S. strike, but said the nation is entitled to "exercise its right of self-defense."
New York Post
14 minutes ago
- New York Post
Homeland Security warns of possible terrorist attacks in US following strike on Iran
The Department of Homeland Security issued a terrorism alert on Sunday — warning of possible Iranian attacks against the US following the American airstrikes against Tehran's nuclear program. DHS warned officials to be on the lookout for Iranian-led attacks over the next three months by terror cells inspired to retaliate following Saturday night's strike. 'The likelihood of violent extremists in the Homeland independently mobilizing to violence in response to the conflict would likely increase if Iranian leadership issued a religious ruling calling for retaliatory violence against targets in the Homeland,' DHS said in a statement. Advertisement Iranians at a rally in Tehran after the US airstrikes on three of the countries nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025. via REUTERS Along with the possibility of extremist attacks on US soil, officials warned that the chances of both cyberattacks and antisemitic acts are likely to increase. The advisory comes after the NYPD put out its own alert last night, with Gov. Hochul upping security at the MTA and Port Authority.
Boston Globe
14 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
With military strike his predecessors avoided, Trump takes a huge gamble
The prime target was the deeply buried enrichment center at Fordo, which Israel was incapable of reaching. Advertisement For Trump, the decision to attack the nuclear infrastructure of a hostile nation represents the biggest -- and potentially most dangerous -- gamble of his second term. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up He is betting that the United States can repel whatever retaliation Iran's leadership orders against more than 40,000 U.S. troops spread over bases throughout the region. All are within range of Tehran's missile fleet, even after eight days of relentless attacks by Israel. And he is betting that he can deter a vastly debilitated Iran from using its familiar techniques -- terrorism, hostage-taking and cyberattacks -- as a more indirect line of attack to wreak revenge. Most importantly, he is betting that he has destroyed Iran's chances of ever reconstituting its nuclear program. That is an ambitious goal: Iran has made clear that, if attacked, it would exit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and take its vast program underground. That is why Trump focused so much attention on destroying Fordo, the facility Iran built in secret that was publicly exposed by President Barack Obama in 2009. That is where Iran was producing almost all of the near-bomb-grade fuel that most alarmed the United States and its allies. Advertisement Trump's aides were telling those allies Saturday night that Washington's sole mission was to destroy the nuclear program. They described the complex strike as a limited, contained operation akin to the special operation that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011. 'They explicitly said this was not a declaration of war,' one senior European diplomat said late Saturday, describing his conversation with a high-ranking administration official. But, the diplomat added, bin Laden had killed 3,000 Americans. Iran had yet to build a bomb. In short, the administration is arguing that it was engaged in an act of preemption, seeking to terminate a threat, not the Iranian regime. But it is far from clear that the Iranians will perceive it that way. In a brief address from the White House on Saturday night, flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Trump threatened Iran with more destruction if it does not bend to his demands. 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' he said. 'If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.' 'There will be either peace,' he added, 'or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left.' He promised that if Iran did not relent, he would go after them 'with precision, speed and skill.' Advertisement In essence, Trump was threatening to broaden his military partnership with Israel, which has spent the last eight days systematically targeting Iran's top military and nuclear leadership, killing them in their beds, their laboratories and their bunkers. The United States initially separated itself from that operation. In the Trump administration's first public statement about those strikes, Rubio emphasized that Israel took 'unilateral action against Iran,' adding that the United States was 'not involved.' But then, a few days ago, Trump mused on his social media platform about the ability of the United States to kill Iran's 86-year-old supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, anytime he wanted. And Saturday night, he made clear that the United States was all in, and that contrary to Rubio's statement, the country was now deeply involved. Now, having set back Iran's enrichment capability, Trump is clearly hoping that he can seize on a remarkable moment of weakness -- the weakness that allowed the American B-2 bombers to fly in and out of Iranian territory with little resistance. After Israel's fierce retaliation for the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks that killed over 1,000 Israeli civilians, Iran is suddenly bereft of its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. Its closest ally, Syria's Bashar Assad, had to flee the country. And Russia and China, which formed a partnership of convenience with Iran, were nowhere to be seen after Israel attacked the country. That left only the nuclear program as Iran's ultimate defense. It was always more than just a scientific project -- it was the symbol of Iranian resistance to the West, and the core of the leadership's plan to hold on to power. Advertisement Along with the repression of dissent, the program had become the ultimate means of defense for the inheritors of the Iranian revolution that began in 1979. If the taking of 52 American hostages was Iran's way of standing up to a far larger, far more powerful adversary in 1979, the nuclear program has been the symbol of resistance for the last two decades. One day historians may well draw a line from those images of blindfolded Americans, who were held for 444 days, to the dropping of GBU-57 bunker-busting bombs on the mountainous redoubt called Fordo. They will likely ask whether the United States, its allies or the Iranians themselves could have played this differently. And they will almost certainly ask whether Trump's gamble paid off. His critics in Congress were already questioning his approach. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said Trump had acted 'without consulting Congress, without a clear strategy, without regard to the consistent conclusions of the intelligence community' that Iran had made no decision to take the final steps to a bomb. If Iran finds itself unable to respond effectively, if the ayatollah's hold on power is now loosened, or if the country gives up its long-running nuclear ambitions, Trump will doubtless claim that only he was willing to use America's military reach to achieve a goal his last four predecessors deemed too risky. But there is another possibility. Iran could slowly recover, its surviving nuclear scientists could take their skills underground and the country could follow the pathway lit by North Korea, with a race to build a bomb. Today, North Korea has 60 or more nuclear weapons by some intelligence estimates, an arsenal that likely makes it too powerful to attack. Advertisement That, Iran may conclude, is the only pathway to keep larger, hostile powers at bay, and to prevent the United States and Israel from carrying out an operation like the one that lit up the Iranian skies Sunday morning. This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
