Can undocumented immigrants obtain a commercial driver’s license (CDL) in the United States?
Executive summary
Undocumented immigrants generally cannot obtain a resident Commercial Driver’s License (CDL), but some non‑citizens with specific federal documentation can receive a non‑domiciled CDL — a patchwork shaped by federal rules, recent FMCSA action and divergent state practices (FMCSA guidance allowing EAD/I‑94 holders to get non‑domiciled CDLs) [1] [2]. Federal enforcement changes in 2025 prompted audits, mass revocations and an interim final rule aimed at narrowing non‑domiciled CDL issuance; court action has temporarily preserved older FMCSA guidance in effect [2] [1] [3].
1. Federal framework: resident vs. non‑domiciled CDLs
Federal rules distinguish resident CDLs (issued to people domiciled in a U.S. state) from non‑domiciled CDLs (for foreign‑domiciled drivers temporarily in the U.S.). FMCSA guidance historically allowed a foreign national holding an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) or an unexpired foreign passport plus an approved CBP I‑94 to obtain a non‑domiciled CDL; that guidance is cited directly by the agency [1]. The September 2025 interim final rule tightened those standards to limit non‑domiciled CDL issuance, citing safety and compliance concerns [2].
2. Recent policy shift: FMCSA rulemaking and state audits
FMCSA issued an interim final rule on September 29, 2025, explicitly to “restore integrity” to non‑domiciled CDL issuance, after Annual Program Reviews found procedural errors and non‑compliance in multiple states and cited crashes involving non‑lawful residents with CDLs [2]. The IFR aimed to narrow state authority to issue CLPs and CDLs to foreign‑domiciled individuals and to limit expiration periods and verification practices [2].
3. Legal uncertainty: guidance, rule, and a court stay
Although FMCSA published the IFR, the agency itself notes that a U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. issued a stay on the IFR on November 13, 2025, which means the pre‑IFR guidance — permitting EAD or passport+I‑94 holders to get non‑domiciled CDLs — remains in effect until further notice [1]. Available sources do not mention final judicial resolution; the status is in flux and depends on ongoing litigation [1].
4. State variation and political pressure
States have responded unevenly. Some states historically issued licenses to undocumented residents for non‑commercial driving and in some cases issued non‑domiciled CDLs; federal audits later flagged several states (Colorado, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and California among those noted by FMCSA) for issuing non‑domiciled CDLs in violation of rules [2]. Political actors and members of Congress have proposed or promoted legislation and executive actions to tighten eligibility and to penalize non‑compliant states, showing strong political pressure to limit access [4] [5].
5. Real‑world fallout: revocations and enforcement
Federal scrutiny produced concrete consequences: California announced revocation of about 17,000 commercial licenses after an audit found they were issued to immigrants no longer lawfully present, and federal officials linked revocations to safety concerns after a high‑profile fatal crash involving a driver not lawfully present who held a non‑domiciled CDL [3] [2]. Those episodes were foundational to the FMCSA’s tightening rationale [2] [3].
6. Practical takeaway for undocumented immigrants and employers
Available sources indicate undocumented immigrants without an EAD, approved I‑94 or similar accepted federal documentation will generally be ineligible for resident CDLs; non‑domiciled CDLs have been available to certain foreign visitors with specific authorizations but are now subject to tighter federal oversight and state compliance reviews [1] [2]. Employers and aspiring drivers should consult state SDLAs and track FMCSA rule status — the legal landscape shifted in 2025 and remains contested [2] [1].
7. Competing perspectives and where reporting diverges
Industry outlets and state DMVs have argued they followed federal verification tools like USCIS SAVE when issuing CDLs, disputing claims that states “illegally” issued credentials in every case [6]. Federal agencies and some lawmakers counter that systemic errors and specific fatal crashes demonstrate laxities requiring stricter rules [2] [4]. Readers should note the tension: states and DMVs often defend compliance on a case‑by‑case basis, while FMCSA emphasizes systemic findings from program reviews [6] [2].
Limitations: Sources supplied here do not include finalized court rulings deciding the IFR’s fate, state‑by‑state up‑to‑date policy maps, or detailed procedural steps applicants must now follow in every state; for current, state‑specific guidance consult your state SDLA and FMCSA notices referenced above [1] [2] [7].