What specific data elements are required on a Real ID-compliant driver's license?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Real ID-compliant driver’s licenses are state-issued credentials that carry both visible markings and backend data elements attesting to federal-compliance status; to obtain one states must verify and record certain identity and status documents (proof of identity, lawful presence, Social Security number, and residency) and the issued card must include a portrait and data that tie to the issuing agency’s database and a DHS-compliance flag (often signaled by a star or other marking) [1] [2] [3] [4]. Federal regulations and guidance require states to manage and retain specific data fields for both physical cards and interoperable mobile driver’s licenses (mDLs), even while states keep their own records rather than creating a national database [4] [5].
1. What the visible card must show: portrait, expiration, and a compliance mark
Every REAL ID-compliant physical credential must carry the holder’s portrait image and the usual license data (name and expiration consistent with the state’s normal validity period) and display a federally recognized compliance marking on the card—commonly a star in the upper-right or, for some enhanced IDs, a flag or other emblem—that signals acceptance for boarding aircraft and entering certain federal facilities [1] [6] [7] [8].
2. The backend data elements federal rules explicitly require for physical and mobile credentials
Federal implementing regulations require states to issue mDLs and data records that include, among other mandated elements, a “DHS_compliance” data element reflecting whether the underlying physical card is REAL ID-compliant (values such as “F” for compliant or “N” for non‑compliant are specified), a portrait image that matches the state licensing database, and other interoperable data specified in the AAMVA mDL guidelines incorporated by reference [4]. The rule also obliges states to manage issuance, revocation, and records retention and to protect personally identifiable information during processing and storage [4].
3. What states must collect and verify before issuing the credential
To obtain a REAL ID credential, state motor vehicle agencies must collect and verify documentary evidence of the applicant’s identity (e.g., unexpired passport or birth certificate), lawful status or immigration status where applicable, Social Security number (or a letter from SSA stating ineligibility), and state residency (typically two documents such as utility bills or mortgage statements) — these are the minimum verification categories repeatedly cited across state DMV guidance and federal FAQs [1] [3] [2] [9] [10] [11].
4. What is NOT centralized — and why that matters for data elements
Federal statements and state pages emphasize that REAL ID is a set of issuance standards, not a federal ID or single national database: states continue to issue and maintain their own records, and DHS/other federal agencies do not compile a national driver‑license database as part of REAL ID [5] [12]. That architecture means required data elements are implemented locally and must be present in state records and on interoperable mDL data sets, but there is no single centralized list beyond the regulatory elements (e.g., DHS_compliance, portrait, and matching state-record data) spelled out in the Code of Federal Regulations and referenced mDL guidelines [4] [8].
5. Points of friction and where reporting diverges from technical reality
Public guidance often highlights the visible star and the need for specific documents, which is accurate but incomplete for understanding the “data elements” question: the technical rules embedded in 6 CFR Part 37 demand specific machine‑readable and recordable data (DHS_compliance flags, database-matched portrait and identity fields, mDL interoperability attributes) plus recordkeeping and privacy safeguards, a level of detail that everyday DMV pages summarize as document categories rather than enumerating the regulatory data fields [4] [1] [8]. Privacy advocates and some states have raised concerns about data sharing, and federal text requires states to explain privacy and key-management practices when implementing mDLs, reflecting tension between interoperability and privacy [4].