required

You probably think of the money in your retirement accounts as yours, but if you have traditional IRAs or 401(k)s, it’s not that straightforward. You owe the IRS a cut of your savings, and at a certain point, it forces you to start taking required minimum distributions (RMDs). These are mandatory annual withdrawals that you must pay taxes on.

If you’re new to RMDs, they can seem a little intimidating. Failing to withdraw the required amount results in a steep 25% tax penalty on the amount you should’ve withdrawn, so it’s important to know how to calculate yours correctly. Let’s look at the example of a retirement account with a $500,000 balance.

Image source: Getty Images.

Three situations where you don’t have to take an RMD

You won’t have to take an RMD from your retirement account if any of the following are true:

• You’re under age 73: RMDs begin in the year you turn 73. If you turn 73 in 2025, you technically have until April 1, 2026 to take your first RMD. In all subsequent years, you must take RMDs no later than Dec. 31 of that year.
• It’s a Roth account: You fund Roth accounts with after-tax dollars, so you can enjoy tax-free withdrawals in retirement. Because of this, the government has no incentive to force you to take money out each year.
• The account is associated with your current employer: If you’re still working, you can delay RMDs from your current employer’s retirement plan until the year after the year you retire. However, you still have to take RMDs from old 401(k)s and traditional IRAs,if you have any.

If none of these things apply to you, then you will need to take an RMD. Fortunately, they’re not too difficult to calculate.

How to calculate your RMD on a $500,000 account

You calculate your RMD using the balance as of Dec. 31 of the previous year — Dec. 31, 2024 for your 2025 RMD. If you don’t know what your balance was at that time, you may need to look it up or speak to your plan administrator.

Once you know the amount, all you need to do is divide that by the distribution period next to your age in the IRS’ Uniform Lifetime Table. The result is your RMD.

So, for example, if you had $500,000 in your 401(k) as of Dec. 31, 2024 and you turned 73 in 2025, your RMD would be $500,000 divided by 27.4 — the distribution period for 73-year-olds. That comes out to about $18,248.

You’re free to take out more than this if you’d like. But this is the minimum amount you must withdraw in order to avoid the 25% penalty.

What if you don’t want to take your RMD?

Avoiding mandatory withdrawals generally isn’t worth it. The 25% penalty will likely cost you more than what you would’ve paid in income taxes if you’d just taken the RMD as scheduled.

That said, sometimes you may not want to deal with the extra taxes an RMD can bring. In that case, consider making a qualifying charitable distribution (QCD). This is where you ask your plan administrator to send an amount equal to your RMD or a portion of it to a qualifying tax-exempt organization.

The money must go directly to the charity. If the plan administrator distributes it to you first, it does not count, even if you give it all away to charitable causes. Done properly, the IRS won’t tax you on this retirement account withdrawal, and it’ll consider your RMD satisfied for the year.

The maximum QCD you can make in 2025 is $108,000. This should be more than enough for most people.

You may have already spent an amount equal to your RMD on living expenses this year. In that case, you’re in the clear until next year. Check with your plan administrator if you’re unsure how much you’ve already withdrawn from your accounts in 2025. If you come up a little short, be sure to make some more withdrawals in the next few weeks.

CHICAGO — Federal immigration officers in the Chicago area will be required to wear body cameras, a judge said Thursday after seeing tear gas and other aggressive steps used against protesters.

U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis said she was a “little startled” after seeing TV images of clashes between agents and the public during President Donald Trump’s administration’s immigration crackdown.

“I live in Chicago if folks haven’t noticed,” she said. “And I’m not blind, right?”

Community efforts to oppose U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement have ramped up in the nation’s third-largest city, where neighborhood groups have assembled to monitor ICE activity and film incidents involving agents. More than 1,000 immigrants have been arrested since September.

Separately, the Trump administration has tried to deploy National Guard troops, but the strategy was halted last week by a different judge.

Ellis last week said agents in the area must wear badges, and she banned them from using certain riot control techniques against peaceful protesters and journalists.

“I’m having concerns about my order being followed,” the judge said.

“I am adding that all agents who are operating in Operation Midway Blitz are to wear body-worn cameras, and they are to be on,” Ellis said, referring to the government’s name for the crackdown.

U.S. Justice Department attorney Sean Skedzielewski laid blame with “one-sided and selectively edited media reports.” He also said it wouldn’t be possible to immediately distribute cameras.

“I understand that. I would not be expecting agents to wear body-worn cameras they do not have,” Ellis said, adding that the details could be worked out later.

She said the field director of the enforcement effort must appear in court Monday.

In 2024, Immigration and Customs Enforcement began deploying about 1,600 body cameras to agents assigned to Enforcement and Removal Operations.

At the time, officials said they would be provided to agents in Baltimore, Philadelphia, Washington, Buffalo, New York and Detroit. Other Homeland Security Department agencies require some agents to wear cameras. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has released body-camera video when force has been used by its agents or officers.

Fernando writes for the Associated Press.

Scottish schools are now required to enforce toilet polices on the “basis of biological sex.”

Back in April, the UK Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow to trans rights when it ruled that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex.

The decision stemmed from a dispute centring on whether a trans woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) should be treated the same as a cisgender woman under the UK’s Equality Act 2010.

A week later, a Scottish judge ordered that schools must provide single sex toilets after a case against the Scottish Borders Council (SBC) was brought to the court, per the BBC.

In light of the aforementioned rulings, the Scottish government issued “revised guidance for schools on supporting transgender pupils” on 29 September, which includes new recommendations for campus toilets and changing rooms.

The updated guidance says that under the law, schools must provide separate toilet facilities for boys and girls “on the basis of biological sex” – which the document refers to “sex recorded at birth – and accessible facilities for young people with a disability.

It also says that “educational authorities and schools should consider toilet provisions necessary for transgender pupils,” such as “gender neutral provisions.”

“The design of gender neutral facilities should ensure privacy for all young people. In practice, this should include features such as full height walls and doors and should take account of the particular needs of female pupils,” the guidance adds.

“Where any change is being introduced to the arrangements that a pupil has been familiar with, there should be additional planning and consideration of their needs, including relating to their safety and wellbeing.

“It is necessary to recognise and mitigate as far as possible, the risk of ‘outing’ a young person. This may mean that it is necessary that practical arrangements such as enabling young people to use facilities outwith usual breaktimes, or for particular facilities to be available aligned to the young person’s activities within school, to reduce visibility of them moving across and within the school building to access toilet or changing room facilities.”

Previously, schools were told that trans students could use any toilet they felt most comfortable in.

In an interview with BBC Radio Scotland’s Good Morning Scotland, Education Secretary Jenny Gilruth gave further insight into the adjusted guidance.

“The Scottish Government has made it absolutely clear that we accept the Supreme Court ruling, and since April we’ve been taking forward the detailed work that is necessary as a consequence of the ruling,” she said.

“Now we know in Scotland all schools are required to provide separate toilets for girls and boys, and in addition, the guidance makes clear that councils should give careful consideration to the individual needs of transgender pupils in light of the school context.”

Gilruth went on to say that the guidance was not mandatory, just suggestions from the Scottish government.

“That’s because of the statutory legal requirements that mean under the 1980 Education Act that our councils run our schools, not the government directly,” she continued.

“There are not penalties, but of course it is incumbent on the government to update our guidance in line with legal changes.”

While Gilruth confirmed that the guidance isn’t mandatory, she confirmed that schools are “required by law to have separate toilet facilities for boys and girls and also to have accessible toilet provisions.”

“And of course the guidance has been updated to recognise the clarification of the definition of sex under the Equality Act 2010 following the Supreme Court judgement,” she added.

In a separate interview with Good Morning Scotland, the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS) discussed the challenges that arise with the new guidance, stating that it doesn’t fully address the needs of trans youth. 

“Considering the nature of the Supreme Court judgement, it would be difficult for the Scottish Government to advise anything other than something which is considered to be compliant with the law,” she explained.

“The difficulty with it is that it perhaps does not fully address the needs of transgender young people in that many of them will not feel comfortable whatsoever using the toilets that the guidance suggests that they should.

“There’s suggestion in the guidance that perhaps those young people could use disabled toilet facilities or even staff toilet facilities, and neither of those are perfect.”

With the year winding down, older investors with money sitting in ordinary IRAs may soon need to withdraw at least some of it. It’s called a required minimum distribution, or RMD.

What’s the minimum? It depends on your age and the total market value of your retirement accounts as of the end of calendar 2024. Here’s the required minimum distribution on $50,000 worth of retirement savings at a range of ages, beginning with age 73, which is when RMD rules first kick in.

• 73: $1,886.79 (3.77%)
• 75: $2,032.52 (4.06%)
• 80: $2,475.25 (4.95%)
• 85: $3,125.00 (6.25%)
• 90: $4,095.36 (8.20%)
• 100: $7,812.50 (15.62%)

The size of the required — and taxable — distribution grows as you age, maxing out at 50% of the prior year’s ending balance for anyone lucky enough to reach the age of 120.

Important RMD rules

There are some noteworthy rules to consider here. Chief among them is that RMD rules only apply to ordinary IRAs like contributory/traditional IRAs, 401(k) accounts, or 403(b) accounts. They don’t apply to Roth IRAs.

Image source: Getty Images.

It’s also worth noting that you don’t necessarily need to take an RMD from each and every IRA you own. You can combine the value of all your ordinary IRAs and take a distribution from just one. And you can do the same for 403(b) accounts, although you can’t mix and match 403(b) and traditional IRA accounts. One key exception is 401(k) accounts; you must take your calculated minimum distribution from each and every one, assuming you own more than one.

As for timing, although your very first required minimum distribution doesn’t need to be completed until April 1 in the year after you turn 73, subsequent RMDs must be completed by the end of the calendar year. Just bear in mind that waiting until the last minute to take your first RMD means you’ll be taking two taxable distributions in the same tax year.

When the fires this year upended Los Angeles and put into question what it even means to return to normal, I was reminded of a chapter in “California Against the Sea” that had expanded my own understanding of what it takes to truly adapt our built environment — and to reimagine the places that we have come to love and call home.

This chapter, which opens with a radical shoreline reconfiguration just north of San Francisco, came not without controversy, but it provided a glimpse into what compromise might need to look like for so many communities struggling to keep up with climate change. Rather than hold the line with increasing futility, here was a humbling example of what can be possible when we transcend the throes of politics — and when we choose to set aside our differences and think beyond just reacting to the same disasters time and time again.

Since the book was published in 2023, the bridge described in the following excerpt has been completed, and the creek is finally free. Accommodating nature in this way called for some tough and unfamiliar changes, but go out to the beach today, and you can see the marsh starting to recover and the entire ecosystem gently resetting with the rhythms of the sea.

So much of the climate debate is still framed around what it is that we have to give up, but does it have to be this way? Rather than confront these decisions as though it’s our doom, can we embrace change and reconsider each effort to adapt as an opportunity — an opportunity to come together and build more bridges to the future?

Excerpted from “California Against the Sea: Visions for Our Vanishing Coastline” by Rosanna Xia. Reprinted with permission from Heyday Books, © 2023.

A few winding turns past Bodega Bay, about an hour north of San Francisco, relentless waves pound against a stretch of coastline in dire need of re-imagining. Gleason Beach, once reminiscent of a northern version of Malibu, is now mostly just a beach in name. Sand emerges only during the lowest of tides. Bits of concrete and rebar are all that remain of 11 clifftop homes that once faced the sea. A graveyard of seawalls, smashed into pieces, litters the shore. Here along the foggy bluffs of the Sonoma coast, the edge of the continent feels more like the edge of the world — a window into the future if California does not change course.

Los Angeles knows how to weather a crisis — or two or three. Angelenos are tapping into that resilience, striving to build a city for everyone.

These wave-cut cliffs, a brittle mélange of ancient claystone and shale, have been eroding on average about a foot a year, exacerbated since the 1980s by a hardened shoreline, intensifying El Niños and, now, sea level rise. With the beach underwater, the seawalls destroyed and so many homes surrendered, the pressure is now on Highway 1 to hold the line between land and sea. Year after year, residents have watched the waves carve away at the two-lane road — their only way to get to work, their only way to evacuate, their only way to reach all the rocky coves, beaches and seaside campgrounds that make this coast a marvel.

Broken concrete is all that’s left of a number of clifftop homes at Gleason Beach on the Sonoma Coast, pictured here in 2019.

(Carolyn Cole/ Los Angeles Times)

So, with every storm and every knock from the ocean, officials have scrambled to save the highway, pouring millions of tax dollars into a vicious cycle of sudden collapses and emergency repairs. From 2004 to 2018 alone, state transportation officials spent about $10 million in emergency defenses and failed repairs. In 2019, almost half a mile had to be reduced to one lane.

This lifeline for the region now hangs inches from the edge. The once spectacular coastline had seemingly morphed overnight — an apocalyptic transformation, decades in the making, seen with stark clarity now that orange caution tape and makeshift traffic lights mark what’s left of the shore.

“This is what unmanaged retreat looks like, and it is quite frankly a hot mess of septic systems, old house parts and armoring that have fallen into the intertidal zone with no real mechanism for cleaning it up,” Sonoma County supervisor Lynda Hopkins declared. “If we don’t start planning ahead and taking proactive measures, Mother Nature will make the decisions for us.”

With the realities of climate change looming ever closer, California transportation officials agreed it was time to try something different: make peace with the sea and move the crumbling highway more than 350 feet inland. They knew nailing down the details would be fraught, but, if done right, this would be the first radical effort by the state to plan for a reimagined coast — a coast that could support California into the next century. It was the rare managed retreat proposal that intentionally sought to both raise and relocate critical infrastructure far enough from the shore to make room for the next 100 years of rising water.

Compromise wasn’t easy. Officials studied more than 20 alternatives that tried to balance safety codes, traffic needs, fragile habitats, public access to the coast and other competing requirements that were tricky to meet given the topography. There were also all the nearby property owners who needed persuading, not to mention a skeptical, conservation-minded community that was averse to saving a human-altered shoreline with more human alterations. They ran into every argument and counterargument that have tugged, pulled and paralyzed other communities.

At its heart this project, like so many attempts along the California coast, called for a reckoning over what was worth saving — and what was worth sacrificing — and whether it was possible to redesign a treasured landscape so that it survives into the future.

Book cover for “California Against the Sea” by Rosanna Xia

(Heyday Books)

“It seems daunting; it’s a lot of change to cope with, but it’s also an opportunity for communities to think about, ‘What are the coastal resources we want to have access to fifty, one hundred years from now?’” said Tami Grove, who oversees transportation projects for the California Coastal Commission and spent years reconciling all the emotional meetings, the disagreements, the many stops and stalls and hand-wringing compromises. “It gets lost, sometimes, when people are worried about everything that we’re going to lose to sea level rise — but there are things that we’re going to be able to choose and enhance and design into the future if we start planning now.”

In what many described as a major coup in government bureaucracy, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the coastal commission and county leaders set aside their differences to come up with a new solution together. By November 2020, they had hammered out a plan to relocate almost one mile of the highway — most notably with a new 850-foot-long bridge spanning Scotty Creek, a degraded stream that, choked for decades by the highway’s current configuration, rarely reached the ocean anymore. Rather than agonize over how to restore the landscape to some former, unobtainable baseline of “natural,” officials unanimously agreed that this bold re-imagining of the coast was the best way forward among no perfect options.

The concrete bridge (a monstrous overpass or a reasonable compromise, depending on who’s talking) will at least allow Scotty Creek to flow freely into the ocean again — making room for more red-legged frogs, Myrtle’s silverspot butterflies, and the passage of steelhead trout and coho salmon. Officials reasoned that elevating the highway would avoid paving over what’s left of the wetlands, which were already in desperate need of healing. By rerouting traffic onto a bridge, these drowning habitats would have the space to recover and migrate inland as the sea moved in.

State transportation officials also agreed, as part of the $73 million project, to pay $5 million to help clean up the mess of abandoned homes and failed road repairs. An additional $6.5 million will go toward wetland, creek and prairie restoration. Some of the old highway will be converted into a public coastal trail, and visitors will have access to a new parking area, as well as a beach that was once limited by private property.

Caltrans also set aside money to negotiate and acquire land from three private properties, including oceanfront portions of a historic ranch that will be most impacted by the realigned highway. Once completed, much of the open space will be transferred to Sonoma County to manage on behalf of the public.

This all came as a shock at first for Philip and Roberta Ballard, who own and live on the ranch, but they said they’ve come to understand the necessity of this project. The bridge still feels way too big — especially for this rural stretch of paradise that first captured their hearts more than two decades ago — but after years of meetings, questions and debating each trade-off, the retired couple decided to turn their energies toward making sure Scotty Creek got restored as part of the deal.

The creek, the largest watershed between Salmon Creek and the Russian River, has needed help since before they purchased the ranch, they said. In a past life, steelhead trout and coho salmon thrived in this stream. The once-abundant fish disappeared after the concrete culvert, installed in 1952 to support the highway, blocked their ability to migrate between fresh- and saltwater. The brackish habitat drowned over the decades. Then the creek, swollen after a series of big storms in the 1980s, flooded the lower plain. The stream banks were denuded of vegetation and the riffle crests obliterated as the choked stream tried to reach the sea.

Since 2004, the Ballards, both professors emeriti of pediatrics at UC San Francisco, have been piecing together ways to restore the creek, one small project at a time. Full restoration would require grading and reshaping the riverbanks, bringing back the native vegetation, improving water flow and re-creating the pools that once provided shelter to juvenile fish. The $6.5 million that Caltrans promised as part of the final deal will go a long way, they said, to nursing this entire ecosystem back to life.

“A lot of our efforts have gone into trying to make the best out of something that is necessary,” Roberta Ballard said. “We’ve arrived at feeling reasonably good about getting the best mitigation we can get for this region and getting something reasonably positive out of it.”

Construction crews work on building a new bridge over Scotty Creek, as part of Caltrans’ Gleason Beach Roadway Realignment Project.

(John Huseby / Caltrans)

When we don’t understand and don’t allow for the ocean’s ways, we end up with homes perched on crumbling cliffs and seawalls still making a stand. Guided by a few mere decades of history and a narrow understanding of the California shore, many today know only how to preserve the version of the coast they learned to love. Rather than imagine a different way to live, we cling to the fragility of what we still have and account for only what we consider lost. Even remembering how wide a beach used to be, or how the cliffs once withstood the tide, glorifies the notion that resilience is measured by our ability to remain unchanged.

We fail to see how we’ve replaced entire ecological systems with our own hardened habitats, and then altered the shoreline even more once the shore began to disappear. Neither replicating the past nor holding on to the present is going to get us to the future that we need. Learning from the recurring cycles of nature, listening to the knowledge gained with each flood and storm, adapting and choosing to transform — this is what it means to persevere. Change, in the end, has been the only constant in our battle for permanence. Change is the only way California will learn how to live with, not on, this beautiful, vanishing coastline that so many people settled and still wish to call home.

Stefan Galvez-Abadia, Caltrans’s district division chief of environmental planning and engineering, is now attempting with his team to design a prettier bridge at Gleason Beach, one more fitting for the rural landscape. They’ve studied the arched columns of Bixby Creek Bridge on the Big Sur coast and other popular landmarks that have become iconic over time. They’ve conducted surveys on what color to paint the bridge — some shade of gray or brown, for example, or a more distinct hue like that of the Golden Gate Bridge. Donne Brownsey, who served as vice chair of the Coastal Commission at the time, remarked that the project reminded her of a concrete beam bridge in Mendocino County that spans the mouth of the Ten Mile River, just north of where she lives in Fort Bragg. “It was a new bridge, it caused a lot of consternation, but I didn’t know that the first few times I went over it — I would look forward to that part of the drive, because I could see the whole estuary to the west, and I could see the rivershed to the east,” she said. “You don’t even really see the bridge anymore because the swallows now all nest there, and it’s just part of nature.”

The bridge at Gleason Beach, facing similar design constraints as the Ten Mile Bridge, also has to be massive — a counter-intuitive twist to what one might think it means to accommodate the environment. Engineers had at first tried more minimal options — a shorter bridge, thinner columns, a less intrusive height — but many were not large enough in size or distance to outlast the coastal erosion projected for the next 100 years. And to give the wetlands enough space to grow back, the highway needed to be elevated at a landscape-wide scale.

The completed bridge and realignment of Highway 1 can now be seen at Gleason Beach, about an hour north of San Francisco.

(Caltrans)

Despite so many years of seminars and talks about climate change adaptation, turning an abstract concept like managed retreat into reality has been a delicate exercise in compromise, Galvez-Abadia said. There were few case studies to turn to, and each one he examined dealt with an increasingly complicated set of trade-offs.

“You don’t have many choices when it comes to sea level rise,” he said, flipping through almost two dozen renderings his team had tried. “Whichever way you choose, you’re going to have some kind of impact. These are the difficult decisions that we will all have to make as a region, as a community, for generations to come.”

As he filed away his notes and prepared to break ground, he reflected once more on all the years it took to reach this first milestone. The process wasn’t easy. A lot of people are still frustrated. Even more are disappointed. Many tough property negotiations still lay ahead, but he hoped, at least, to see the wetlands and creek recover beneath the bridge one day. If the native plants reemerge, the salmon return, and there still remains a coast that families could safely access and enjoy, perhaps this new highway — however bold, however different — could show California that it is possible, that it isn’t absurd, to build toward a future where nature and modern human needs could finally coexist.

Many people across the United States are rushing to replace their driver’s licenses and state IDs with federally compliant licences, known as Real ID cards, now required to board domestic flights.

As of May 7, all US citizens more than 18 years of age must show proof of identification that meets the 2005 Real ID Act’s rules, which set higher federal security standards. But this change in federal travel requirements is creating some confusion about what it means for noncitizens.

Passed two decades ago by Congress in response to the bipartisan 9/11 Commission’s recommendations following the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, DC, the aim of the programme was to raise security standards for domestic travel and federal and nuclear facility access.

But immigration experts say the law’s enactment during the second Trump administration has left noncitizens – including some of the 13.5 million people legally in the US on green cards, work and student visas and humanitarian parole – uncertain about what the rule change could mean for their travel.

US President Donald Trump has promised and prioritised mass deportations of criminals and undocumented people in the US. But in practice, his policies have swept up US citizens and people with a legal immigration status. He has also tried to end legal pathways that allowed people to temporarily live and work in the US. Many of these actions are being challenged in court.

Here are some answers to commonly asked questions about Real ID and its effect on citizen versus noncitizen travel.

What is special about Real ID?

The Department of Homeland Security says the aim of the Real ID requirements was to bring consistency to the minimum documentation requirements needed for state-issued IDs – driver’s license, learner’s permits and nondriver IDs.

Now, all states issuing Real ID-compliant cards require people applying for those cards to present certain documentation. The exact requirements vary by state, but in most cases, the minimum documents needed include:

• Proof of identity in the form of a US birth certificate, US passport, or a green card.
• Social Security Number in the form of a Social Security card, W-2 form, or a pay stub.
• Two proofs of address of principal residence, which may be a utility bill, bank statement or mortgage statement.
• Lawful status proof, including a valid employment authorisation document, Social Security Number or a valid unexpired visa.

A Real ID card bears a black or gold star or a US flag in its upper right corner. State-issued ID cards that don’t have these markers will not be accepted as proof of identity to board domestic flights or enter federal facilities.

Here are some examples of what Real IDs look like:

Examples of Real ID-compliant driver’s licenses posted on the Department of Homeland Security’s website.

If I don’t have a Real ID, does it mean I cannot travel domestically any more?

No, you can still travel domestically provided you have another form of identification that is Real ID-compliant.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) lists many other forms of acceptable IDs, including options for people who are not US citizens. Among them:

• State-issued enhanced driver’s licenses or enhanced IDs, which provide proof of identity when crossing the US borders in a vehicle.
• US passports or US passport cards.
• Foreign government-issued passports.
• Department of Homeland Security trusted traveller cards under programmes such as Global Entry, which let US citizens, green card holders and some foreign nationals go through expedited lanes at airports.
• US Department of Defense IDs, including IDs issued to dependents of people in the military.
• Lawful permanent resident cards, also known as green cards.
• Border crossing cards, a document used by Mexican citizens to enter the US.
• Acceptable photo IDs issued by federally recognised tribal nations, including enhanced tribal cards.
• HSPD-12 PIV cards, which are used by federal contractors to access facilities and systems.
• Canadian provincial driver’s license or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada cards.
• Transportation Worker Identification Credentials (TWIC).
• US Citizenship and Immigration Services Employment Authorization Cards.
• US Merchant Mariner Credentials, which show evidence of a mariner’s qualifications; and
• Veteran Health Identification Cards (VHIC).

There’s one big caveat: TSA says the list of acceptable IDs is subject to change without notice and advises travellers to check the list before travelling.

How could Real ID affect noncitizens as they travel in the US?

Although numerous forms of IDs are accepted for noncitizens, the Real ID policy could have a chilling effect on travelers whose documentation differentiates them from citizens, immigration experts told us.

As one example, immigration attorney Prerna Lal said that, in any interaction with federal authorities, carrying a foreign passport could lead to scrutiny of that person’s identity if they lack legal immigration status.

“Even with valid foreign passports, undocumented individuals and mixed-status families may avoid travelling due to concerns about interactions with TSA or law enforcement, despite passports remaining acceptable documentation,” Lal said. “This fear of enforcement, rather than access to IDs, is the primary chilling effect on the immigrant community.”

What happens if people don’t have an acceptable ID at the airport?

A TSA officer may ask a person to complete an identity verification process. If the identity is confirmed, that person will be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint.

Can an immigrant with temporary status obtain a Real ID?

Yes, the Real ID regulations define an individual in a “temporary lawful status” as a person who has a pending application for asylum; has a pending or approved application for temporary protected status; has approved deferred action; or has a pending application for lawful permanent resident or conditional permanent resident status.

The Real ID Act lets states issue temporary, Real ID driver licenses and ID cards to people with temporary status. People with a temporary immigration status are usually granted temporary valid employment authorisation and Social Security numbers, which they can use to apply for Real IDs. Their temporary Real ID will remain valid until their lawful status expires. Florida is one exception: The Sunshine State requires almost all immigrants with lawful status to renew their IDs annually. Green card holders in Florida don’t have to renew a REAL ID every year; their Real ID is valid until their green card expires. Most green cards are valid for 10 years, but people can apply for a renewal.

Also, people with valid student or work visas can present their unexpired passports, visas and I-94 forms – documents that show a person’s authorised period of stay in the US – for proof of identity and legal status and get a Real ID.

States that provide non-Real ID compliant ID cards to people without legal immigration status can still do so, according to DHS, but the cards must clearly state that they are not acceptable for Real ID purposes and must have a unique design or colour to differentiate them from compliant cards. These non-Real ID-compliant ID cards cannot be used as a form of identification for domestic travel.

Could a Real ID prevent an arrest by immigration authorities? Does it confirm that a person is legally in the US?

Lal told PolitiFact that a Real ID alone does not prevent a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s arrest or confirm a lawful immigration status. Although Real ID-compliant identification requires proof of lawful presence for issuance, it is not proof of current immigration status.

“ICE conducts its own verification, and possessing a Real ID does not grant immunity from enforcement actions,” Prerna said.

Prerna said that people should present to ICE valid, government-issued documentation that shows their current immigration status, such as a green card, employment authorisation card or visa.