The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has announced it will begin enforcing stricter identification requirements at airports starting May 7. Passengers without a REAL ID-compliant driver’s license or other approved identification may be denied boarding, the agency warned on Friday.
Beginning that day, TSA will no longer accept state-issued IDs that do not meet REAL ID standards, which were first approved by Congress in 2005 to improve the security of government-issued IDs. Although the law was passed nearly two decades ago, enforcement has been repeatedly delayed.
Travelers aged 18 or older without a passport or an enhanced ID may face additional screening, delays, or even be turned away at security checkpoints, TSA officials said. Currently, 81% of travelers already present compliant identification, and TSA will continue to apply additional screening for the remaining travelers until these are no longer considered a security risk.
Despite the looming deadline, it remains unclear how strictly TSA will enforce the new rules.
Airlines are already bracing for potential disruptions, especially amid broader concerns about softening travel demand driven by global economic uncertainty and trade tensions.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem also noted that starting May 7, REAL ID-compliant identification will be required to enter federal buildings.
The REAL ID Act stems from recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission, aiming to establish uniform federal standards for issuing driver’s licenses and other forms of identification. The TSA had most recently postponed enforcement in December 2022, setting the current deadline for May 2025.
![UK Supreme Court Declares Transgender Women Not Legally 'Woman' Under Equality Act The United Kingdom Supreme Court has declared that transgender women, even those with Gender Recognition Certificates, do not fall under the legal definition of "woman" as set out in the landmark Equality Act 2010. The judgment, delivered by five justices on Wednesday could upend years of hard-fought progress by the trans rights movement and is already fuelling calls for a redraft of the Equality Act. The case, a flashpoint in an increasingly polarised gender rights war, was triggered by a challenge from gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS). Backed in part by author J.K. Rowling and the advocacy group Sex Matters, FWS argued that the term "woman" in the Equality Act must be understood biologically, and not through self-identification or legal paperwork. The Scottish government, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with trans rights advocates, defended its stance. Its lawyers leaned heavily on the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which states that individuals issued a GRC have legally changed their sex “for all purposes.” That, they argued, should include legal protections reserved for women. The Supreme Court’s central concern in its ruling was that treating trans women as women would create insurmountable “practical problems”. “The meaning of the terms ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the [Equality Act] 2010 refer to biological sex, as any other interpretation would render the EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate,” the court ruled. The judges noted that protections for pregnant women would collapse unless “man” and “woman” had a biological meaning. They also found that considering trans women with gender recognition certificates as having a female “certificated sex” created further issues. Lord Hodge said that “interpreting sex as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the [Equality Act 2010] – and thus the protected characteristic of sex – in an incoherent way.” In its reasons, the Supreme Court found that the notion of “certificated sex” would also “weaken the protections given to those with the protected characteristic of sexual orientation,” for example by “interfering with their ability to have lesbian-only spaces and associations”. The justices also found that blurring the boundary of sex would also create “confusion and impracticability” around the provision of “single sex characteristic associations and charities, women’s fair participation in sport, the operation of the public sector equality duty, and the armed forces”. Reacting, the UK Government hailed the “clarity” provided by the Supreme Court’s ruling. “We have always supported the protection of single sex spaces based on biological sex,” a spokesman said. “This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs. “Single sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this Government.”](https://newsbulletin.com.ng/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/1744804310668-300x169.jpg)
