Summary#
This bill would cut federal highway money to states that issue driver's licenses, commercial driver's licenses (CDLs), or state ID cards without verifying an applicant’s legal status. The main change is a new federal rule that starts October 1, 2026: states must have and enforce a law that requires checking and confirming lawful presence before issuing those documents, or lose 10% of certain federal highway funds. The bill aims to ensure only people with specific DHS-issued proof of citizenship or lawful permanent residence get state driving credentials.
Key changes:
- Adds a new federal requirement for states to require and verify “evidence of lawful presence” for all applicants for drivers’ licenses, CDLs, and state ID cards.
- Defines “evidence of lawful presence” narrowly as DHS-issued proof that a person is a U.S. citizen/national or a lawful permanent resident.
- Requires verification methods approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security, including electronic checks of biographic and biometric data (name, photo, fingerprints), FBI fingerprint checks, and confirmation of SSN or ITIN with IRS, SSA, or the SAVE program.
- Starts withholding 10% of certain federal highway formula funds on October 1, 2026, from states that do not have the required law in effect and enforcing it.
- Withheld funds are redistributed to states that are in compliance; if a state becomes compliant during the year, withheld funds for that year are returned.
What it means for you#
- States and state motor-vehicle agencies (DMVs): States that do not already have such laws would likely need to pass new laws or change rules. They must put systems in place to do electronic identity and biometric checks, FBI fingerprint checks, and verify SSNs/ITINs with federal agencies. If they do not, they will lose 10% of certain federal highway funds each year.
- People applying for a driver’s license, CDL, or state ID: Applicants will need to provide the DHS-issued proof the bill defines (proof of U.S. citizenship/national status or lawful permanent residence). This could affect people who are lawfully present in other ways (see “What is unclear”).
- Commercial drivers and trucking companies: CDLs would be subject to the same verification. This could affect individuals seeking CDLs who cannot provide the specified DHS-issued documents. That could affect trucking employers if some drivers cannot get or renew CDLs.
- DMV staff and local offices: Offices may need new equipment, fingerprinting processes, and electronic links to federal systems. Staff will need training on new checks and procedures.
- Other states that comply: States that meet the rule would receive a share of funds withheld from noncompliant states, as a redistribution.
- Motorists and road users: If fewer people obtain licenses in some states, there could be effects on insurance, enforcement, or driving behavior. The bill itself does not describe those downstream effects.
What is unclear:
- Whether temporary lawful statuses (nonimmigrant visas, refugees, asylees, parolees, DACA recipients, etc.) would qualify; the bill’s definition appears limited to citizens/nationals and lawful permanent residents, so this could exclude other lawful residents.
- How quickly the Secretary of Homeland Security must approve verification methods and what exact technical steps states must use.
- How states that already use other federal checks or have different proofs of lawful presence would be treated.
Expenses#
No publicly available information on an official cost estimate or fiscal note was included with the bill text.
Possible costs and financial effects the bill would likely create:
- Lost federal funds for noncompliant states: 10% of certain federal highway formula funds would be withheld until the state complies.
- Administrative and technical costs for states: Building or upgrading systems for biometric and electronic checks, connecting to federal systems (FBI fingerprint checks, SAVE, SSA, IRS), and training staff.
- Operational costs for applicants/states: Costs tied to collecting fingerprints, processing background checks, or verifying SSNs/ITINs, which might be borne by states or applicants depending on state choices.
- Costs to federal agencies: Increased use of FBI fingerprint checks, SAVE, SSA, and IRS verification could raise federal processing demands (no estimate provided).
- Potential economic effects: If fewer people can get CDLs, trucking businesses might face driver shortages; the bill does not provide estimates of such impacts.
Proponents' View#
- The bill appears intended to make sure state-issued driver’s licenses, CDLs, and state ID cards are only given to people who can show specific DHS-issued proof of citizenship or lawful permanent residence.
- A possible argument for the bill is that standard, federal-style checks (including biometric and federal database checks) would reduce identity fraud and improve the integrity of state IDs and licenses.
- The bill could motivate states to adopt consistent verification methods, which supporters may see as improving national security and the trustworthiness of identity documents.
- Withholding funds provides a strong financial incentive for states to adopt these verification laws.
Opponents' View#
- One concern is that the bill’s definition of “evidence of lawful presence” is narrow. It may exclude people who are lawfully present under other immigration statuses, which could block them from getting licenses or CDLs even if they have legal permission to be in the U.S. This could have practical impacts on families and workers.
- The bill does not provide cost estimates. A likely trade-off is that states would bear significant administrative and technical costs to meet the verification rules or lose federal highway funds.
- Requiring biometric checks and FBI fingerprinting for all applicants could raise privacy and data-security concerns and increase processing time at DMVs.
- It is unclear how the Secretary’s approval process for verification methods will work and how quickly states could become compliant, which raises implementation uncertainty.
- Withholding 10% of highway funds could harm state transportation projects and residents if states fail to comply, even if changes would be costly or slow to implement.