MORNING GLORY: 'REAL ID' is coming for you
I was vaguely aware that the push for new "REAL" IDs was back, the requirement to obtain one having been suspended during Covid, but unaware that the deadline loomed.
So last Thursday I trekked to my local DMV office, bringing along my current, valid, Virginia driver's license, my current, valid passport, my Social Security Card and my birth certificate. Surely, I supposed, that would be enough as I'd been assured I could fly with just the passport by the helpful Team TSA.
REAL ID REJECTION BY AMERICANS MAY COME DOWN TO ONE SURPRISING FACTOR
I definitely needed the new license because, while a "REAL ID is an optional, upgraded version of your driver's license or ID card that has a star in the right corner," I had no star and no desire to carry my passport everywhere.
Not surprisingly, a lot of people want to get their"REAL ID" for as the VA DMV helpfully alerts you: "Beginning May 7, 2025, the federal government will require you to present a REAL ID compliant driver's license or ID card, or another federally approved form of ID, in order to board a domestic flight or enter a secure federal facility or military base (some military bases may already require REAL ID or a federally approved form of ID*)."
The DMV opens at 8 AM, so I rolled up last Thursday at 7:30 AM. The line was already more than a dozen people long. An hour later more than 50 good folks were standing in the rope line waiting for one of the three DMV employees assigned to the REAL ID processing. The average processing time was 15 minutes —at the head of the line. You may want to pack a lunch if you get there at official opening time.
It had not occurred to DMV to perhaps add some staff for REAL ID deadline days, or reassign others from the standard busy work. No. Just three DMVers on Thursday and three again on Monday.
I'd flunked REAL ID eligibility last week because none of my current documents list my home address. I use a P.O. Box for a variety of reasons on my driver's license and had —wrongfully it turns out— thought that as a passport could get me on the plane, my passport plus my driver's license, birth certificate and Social Security card should serve to secure my star, right?
Wrong. I needed a utility bill or a mortgage statement or a voter registration card with my home address on it. When I smiled my mild protest that, as a valid passport is sufficient to board a plane, why would it not be sufficient to obtain my "REAL ID" I got the DMV look back. It's the same look at every DMV everywhere. She had heard it all before, but it says on the VIrginia DMV website that I needed documents with my home address. Hadn't I read the DMV website?
Ms. DMV sent me home in search of "secondary documents" with my physical address on it. "Your house deed will work" she helpfully offered.
I dutifully trooped off to my Registrar of Voters and got a voter card with my home address on it. I added a print out of a utility bill and a print out of my mortgage and returned three days later. And held my breath.
The young'n in front of me was getting shot down and was not happy. He'd taken off work. He'd just moved here. He worked remotely and didn't have a boss who could write him a letter with his home address on it. He hadn't opened a bank account.
There were unhappy Virginia drivers at windows two and three as well, perplexed that their state government was making it difficult for them to get a new version of their perfectly legal driver's license.
Expressing dismay at a DMV counter is a rookie mistake. Never, ever express unhappiness or dissatisfaction of any sort with anyone at any DMV. Ever. It will become a mark in your permanent record, and while nothing else moves quickly among the nation's DMVs, word of troublemakers challenge light speed in their travels. My advice is based on experience with four state DMVs and the District of Columbia DMV (the latter is where crying citizens can be seen on an almost on-demand basis.)
So having obtained the paperwork and a promise that the new license would be sent —to my P.O. Box, of course— I decided to search out the original reason for "Real ID."
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Turns out that "The REAL ID Act" was passed in 2005, following recommendations from the 9/11 Commission to set federal standards for state-issued identification. 2005! Now, it's been 20 years since the law passed and almost 24 since 9/11, so the next question is "Why the urgency now?"
As far as I can tell from the Transportation Security Agency website, the May 7 deadline is now because it is – there had to be a deadline sometime. It's the same reason that octogenarians are routinely pulled aside for special screening because the buzzer sounds at the TSA station. Doesn't matter if you have "TSA-pre" or "Clear" or have zero luggage and not even a sweater. The buzzer is the virtual guillotine, and there are Madame Defarges everywhere to enforce the buzzer.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Here's the good news. If you entered the country without permission but obtained "Temporary Protected Status" under one of the Biden-era machinations, you too can get a "REAL ID: "Yes, a TPS beneficiary or individual with a pending TPS application can obtain a REAL ID compliant license or identification card: "The Secretary of Homeland Security may designate a foreign country for TPS due to conditions in the country that temporarily prevent the country's nationals from returning safely, or in certain circumstances, where the country is unable to handle the return of its nationals adequately. USCIS may grant TPS to eligible nationals of certain designated countries (or parts of countries), who are already in the United States. Eligible individuals without nationality who last habitually resided in the designated country may also be granted TPS." Such folks are eligible for REAL ID.
Good to know that. But better to know the passport that will get you on to the plane come Wednesday will not get you a REAL ID. Forewarned is forearmed.
Hugh Hewitt is a Fox News contributor, and host of "The Hugh Hewitt Show," heard weekday mornings 6am to 9am ET on the Salem Radio Network, and simulcast on Salem News Channel. Hugh wakes up America on over 400 affiliates nationwide, and on all the streaming platforms where SNC can be seen. He is a frequent guest on the Fox News Channel's news roundtable hosted by Bret Baier weekdays at 6pm ET. A son of Ohio and a graduate of Harvard College and the University of Michigan Law School, Hewitt has been a Professor of Law at Chapman University's Fowler School of Law since 1996 where he teaches Constitutional Law. Hewitt launched his eponymous radio show from Los Angeles in 1990. Hewitt has frequently appeared on every major national news television network, hosted television shows for PBS and MSNBC, written for every major American paper, has authored a dozen books and moderated a score of Republican candidate debates, most recently the November 2023 Republican presidential debate in Miami and four Republican presidential debates in the 2015-16 cycle. Hewitt focuses his radio show and his column on the Constitution, national security, American politics and the Cleveland Browns and Guardians. Hewitt has interviewed tens of thousands of guests from Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump over his 40 years in broadcast, and this column previews the lead story that will drive his radio/ TV show today.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM HUGH HEWITT
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
How you receive your Social Security, VA benefits may change in fall: What to know
(NEXSTAR) — There have been several changes to government benefit payments already this year, including increased checks for some and clawbacks for outstanding overpayments for others. In about two months, another change is expected to take effect — this one targeting how beneficiaries are paid. Back in March, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to modernize 'payments to and from America's bank account.' The order claimed that paper checks and money orders from the nation's general fund 'are 16 times more likely to be reported lost or stolen, returned undeliverable, or altered' compared to funds that are disbursed electronically. To reduce such occurrences and promote 'operational efficiency,' Trump's order mandates that funds sent out by the federal government be done electronically, with a few exceptions. The order impacts 'all Federal disbursements inclusive of intragovernmental payments, benefits payments, vendor payments, and tax refunds.' That includes any benefits sent out by the Social Security Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Under Trump's order, acceptable digital payment methods include direct deposit, prepaid cards, digital wallets, real-time payment systems, and 'other modern electronic payment options.' Paper payments are set to end on September 30, with a few exceptions. If you are without access to banking services or electronic payment systems, you may still be able to receive a non-electronic payment. Other exceptions outlined in Trump's order include 'emergency payments where electronic disbursement would cause undue hardship,' transactions in which non-electronic payments are 'necessary or desirable,' and other situations as determined by the Treasury Secretary. The Social Security Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs did not immediately respond to Nexstar's request for additional information. Data from the former shows more than 99 percent of beneficiaries already receive payments via direct deposit. If you don't already receive benefit payments electronically, you'll need to log into your account to update your Social Security direct deposit details, speak with a representative, or contact your bank. The latter can provide your direct deposit information to Social Security on your behalf. You can also update your payment details for VA benefits online or over the phone. It's also worth noting that the order calls for 'the payment of Federal receipts' to be made electronically as well. That means if you owe federal taxes, you may not be able to send it in as a check or an envelope of cash and coins. The same could be said for federal student loan payments.
Vox
6 hours ago
- Vox
America is finally moving past its post-9/11 security theater
is a senior editorial director at Vox overseeing the climate teams and the Unexplainable and The Gray Area podcasts. He is also the editor of Vox's Future Perfect section and writes the Good News newsletter. He worked at Time magazine for 15 years as a foreign correspondent in Asia, a climate writer, and an international editor, and he wrote a book on existential risk. On Tuesday, the TSA — a federal agency not known for its generosity — gave American travelers a gift: They will no longer have to take off their shoes when going through airport security. 'I think most Americans will be very excited to see they will be able to keep their shoes on,' said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The statement was, somewhat unusually for Noem, absolutely true. The shoe removal ritual has been standard practice for so long that it's easy to forget why it started. The British al-Qaeda recruit Richard Reid's nearly successful effort to bring down an American Airlines flight mid-air in 2001 with explosives hidden inside his sneakers exposed an apparent hole in airport security. Within a few years, almost all but the youngest and oldest US air passengers had to get used to the awkward habit of holding their shoes as they shuffled through the screening line. (Unless, of course, they shelled out for TSA's PreCheck system.) The policy change is an implicit marker of underappreciated progress. The threat of devastating terror attacks in the US, so long an obsession among both officials and the public, has greatly receded. According to the Global Terrorism Index, the US suffered only three terror attacks in 2024, resulting in just one death — the lowest number since 2010 — while the European Union only experienced 34 attacks, leading to just five deaths. Few would have predicted that decline in the dark days of late 2001 or even 2005, when 20 years ago this month, 52 people were killed in a devastating attack on London's transport system. What drove the decline It might be hard to believe as you're herded bleary-eyed through a Newark airport security line at 6 am, but the TSA has actually gotten better at screening for threats. Beginning in the late 2010s, the TSA began rolling out automated screening lines (ASLs) that were equipped with multi-view computed topography (CT) scanners. These machines generate 3D images of carry-on bags, enabling reliable detection of the same kind of explosives Reid tried to use in 2001. Studies have shown that the CT scanners, which are being rolled out in all major US air hubs, match the old system of X-ray but also offer physical inspection for threat detection, which helped pave the way for the TSA to retire the 'shoes-off' rule. Beyond airport screening, the massive holes in US security that existed before 9/11 have largely been closed. Every traveler who crosses US land and air borders undergoes biographic vetting against the Terrorist Screening Database. Compare that to the pre-9/11 period, when passenger identities were only spot-checked against watchlists if they were specifically flagged pre-boarding, meaning there was no real systematic advance collection of traveler data. The US has worked with other countries to maintain and share data on potential threats; better cross-border policing has helped disrupt multiple terror plots before they could be completed. Perhaps most of all, the nature of the terror threat has changed significantly. In the post-9/11 era, the US faced highly organized international terror cells that were set on attacking the West. Today, after more than two decades of counterterrorism operations, those cells have largely been destroyed. Al-Qaeda's core has been splintered, while ISIS lost its last territorial hold in 2019. Though lone-wolf attacks can still occur, what's left are largely disorganized fighters who struggle to put together an organized plot. We're not in the clear yet More than most of the subjects I write about for Good News, the decline of terrorism requires a whole mess of caveats. First of all — because even at their peak, terror attacks in the West were rare — it's more difficult to be confident that we're truly seeing a long-term, meaningful decline. It's entirely possible that the day after this is published, an attack could take place somewhere in the US. That's exactly what happened on January 1 this year, when Shamsud-Din Jabbar, an American-born Houston resident who had pledged allegiance to ISIS, killed 14 people in a lone-wolf attack in New Orleans. And there are increased threats from right-wing extremists — as seen in the horrifying assassination of Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband — and far too little evidence that the government is taking those threats seriously. The same tools that helped close security gaps at airport and border crossings bring real civil liberties concerns — concerns that will only intensify as the Trump administration takes to exploiting screening measures for naked political reasons. Even as the toll of terrorism has lessened in the US, it has intensified in much of Africa, where a powerful al-Qaeda affiliate killed thousands of civilians. And here at home, there's plenty of reason to fear that sharp budget cuts by the Trump administration — including holding up billions in anti-terrorism grants to states, according to the New York Times — could waste all the progress that has been made. What we're experiencing is, at best, a partial victory, one that has come with costs and that could be reversed at any time. But anyone who remembers the sheer fear that permeated the US in the months and years after 9/11 — the 'orange terror alerts' and the anxiety that accompanied something as simple as boarding a subway car — knows that even a partial victory is more than many of us would have expected. A version of this story originally appeared in the Good News newsletter. Sign up here!
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
President Donald Trump Broke His Social Security Vow -- and It May Be the Best Thing That's Happened to Retirees
President Donald Trump pledged to end the tax on Social Security benefits prior to and following his election. However, Trump's flagship tax and spending law excluded this popular proposal for two very good reasons. Even though the tax on benefits isn't going anywhere, retirees who needed the biggest boost were helped out by the One Big Beautiful Bill. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › In May, Social Security retired-worker benefits made history. For the first time in the nine-decade history of the program, the average monthly check for retired workers topped $2,000. While this is a relatively modest monthly sum, Social Security income is indispensable for most retirees. National pollster Gallup has surveyed retirees annually for 24 years to gauge how important their monthly payout is from America's leading social program. In April 2025, a combined 86% responded that it represented a "major" or "minor" income source, which is in line with the 80% to 90% of respondents in prior surveys who have needed Social Security income, in some capacity, to make ends meet. Nothing bears more importance to retirees than knowing how much they'll receive each month from Social Security -- and arguably nothing excited these beneficiaries more than President Donald Trump's vow to remove the hated tax on the program's benefits. But with his "One Big Beautiful Bill" now signed into law, retirees have come to the realization that the president broke his promise. Ironically, however, this might be the best thing that has happened to retired beneficiaries. In 1983, with the asset reserves of Social Security's trust funds nearly exhausted, a bipartisan Congress passed the Social Security Amendments of 1983, which President Ronald Reagan signed into law. They gradually increased the payroll tax and full retirement age for working Americans and introduced the now-hated tax on the program's benefits. Beginning in 1984, up to half of benefits could be exposed to federal taxation if provisional income (defined as adjusted gross income + tax-free interest + one-half of benefits) topped $25,000 for single filers and $32,000 for couples filing jointly. A decade later, a second tax tier was added that exposed up to 85% of benefits in instances where provisional income surpassed $34,000 and $44,000 for single and married filers, respectively. What's made taxing Social Security benefits such a sensitive subject is that these income thresholds, which were introduced decades ago, haven't once been adjusted for inflation. Taxing benefits was expected to affect around 10% of all senior households in the mid-1980s. Today, it's applicable to approximately half of all senior households. During Donald Trump's presidential campaign, he proclaimed in all caps on Truth Social, "Seniors should not pay tax on Social Security." This was a sentiment that he reiterated at a town hall event months after his inauguration. Based on the overwhelming popularity among existing beneficiaries of eliminating the tax on benefits, the expectation was for Trump's budget bill to follow through on his campaign and post-election vow. But this didn't happen for two very good reasons. The prominent issue with Trump's popular proposal is that it would have financially crippled Social Security. The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund (OASI), which is responsible for paying retired workers and survivor beneficiaries each month, is an estimated eight years away from exhausting its asset reserves. Though the OASI fund doesn't require a cent in asset reserves to continue doling out payments, the existing payout schedule is at risk of being slashed by 23% for retired workers and survivors come 2033. If the president's proposal was somehow signed into law and the tax on Social Security benefits was eliminated, it would have removed one of the program's three sources of funding and expedited the timeline to the depletion of OASI asset reserves. More than likely, it would have also widened how much benefits would need to be cut to sustain payouts through 2099. The other reason eliminating the tax on benefits was shelved has to do with politics. Whereas most tax and spending provisions in what is now Trump's flagship law could be dealt with through a process known as reconciliation (where a simple majority of votes in the House and Senate determines passage), amending the Social Security Act can't be done through reconciliation. It requires 60 votes in the Senate, which would necessitate bipartisan cooperation given that Republicans hold only 53 seats in the upper house of Congress. Instead of holding up the budget bill or risking defeat, the "no tax on Social Security" provision was left out. On the surface, the prospect of still having to pay tax on some portion of Social Security benefits probably isn't sitting well with retirees -- especially with President Trump pledging to remove this disliked tax on a number of occasions. But when push comes to shove, Trump bailing on his Social Security vow may actually be the best possible news for retirees on two fronts. To begin with, abandoning the "no tax on Social Security" provision ensures the OASI asset reserves won't be exhausted demonstrably faster than they're currently projected to. While doing nothing isn't the right answer for Social Security, eliminating the tax on benefits was unequivocally the wrong answer with regard to the financial health of the program. However, the real victory for retirees is the provision that replaced this vow to eliminate the tax on benefits. Trump's flagship tax and spending law offers a number of tax breaks, including no tax on overtime or tips for select workers from 2025 through 2028, as well as a quadrupling in the deduction for state and local tax (SALT) from $10,000 to $40,000 through 2029. But the highlight of Trump's newly signed law is the beefed-up standard deduction for seniors age 65 and above from 2025 through 2028. Retirees will receive an added $6,000 standard deduction -- or $12,000 (combined) when filing jointly -- if their adjusted gross income (AGI) is less than $75,000 for single filers and $150,000 if filing jointly. A 6% phase-out begins above these income thresholds, with single filers and married couples with AGIs above $175,000 and $250,000, respectively, not eligible for this added deduction. Removing the tax on benefits would have specifically aided middle- and high-earning recipients who are currently paying tax on some portion of their benefits. Meanwhile, the temporary deduction boost from the One Big Beautiful Bill is aimed at reducing tax liability for low- and middle-income beneficiaries. In other words, this provision helps the retirees more likely to need a financial boost. Ultimately, this is the best possible outcome for a majority of Social Security retirees. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. President Donald Trump Broke His Social Security Vow -- and It May Be the Best Thing That's Happened to Retirees was originally published by The Motley Fool
