Fact check: California has issued 62k CDLs to illegal immigrants

Executive Summary

The claim that “California has issued 62k CDLs to illegal immigrants” is a mischaracteration of available data: recent reporting and government materials identify about 62,000 unexpired non‑domiciled CLPs/CDLs in California as of June 1, 2025, but those figures do not establish the holders are undocumented or “illegal” ^[1]. Federal audits and subsequent emergency rulemaking flagged substantial problems with non‑domiciled licensing practices and improper issuances, prompting sanctions and policy changes — but the evidence does not support the blanket statement that 62,000 CDLs were issued to undocumented immigrants ^{[2] [3]}.

1. The explosive claim — where the “62k” number comes from and what it actually measures

Reporting cited by regulators shows roughly 62,000 unexpired non‑domiciled CLP/CDL credentials on California’s rolls as of June 1, 2025; this is the figure most commonly invoked in debates over the state’s licensing of foreign drivers ^[1]. Crucially, the term “non‑domiciled” is an administrative category that includes a range of people who are not California domiciliaries and may include foreign nationals lawfully present on certain visas or temporary statuses, not exclusively or necessarily those who lack legal immigration status. The sources explicitly note that the number does not equate to all holders being undocumented ^[1].

2. Federal findings that sparked the controversy — audits, improper issuances, and safety claims

A federal audit and subsequent statements from the Department of Transportation assert a substantial portion of non‑domiciled CDL issuances in California were improperly handled, with one report noting over 25 percent of non‑domiciled CDLs found to be improperly issued — a finding that energized emergency federal action ^[2]. That audit focused on procedural compliance, recordkeeping, and whether federal standards were met for commercial licensing; it did not provide a line‑by‑line attribution of legal status for each of the tens of thousands of credential holders ^[2].

3. Administrative responses — emergency rules, sanctions, and state pauses

In response to safety concerns and audit findings, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced emergency rules restricting issuance of commercial learner’s permits and CDLs to foreigners and introduced administrative sanctions aimed at disciplining state practices ^{[4] [2]}. California and Oregon reportedly halted issuance of non‑domiciled CDLs amid the federal scrutiny, a pause framed by state officials as compliance and review while federal authorities described it as necessary to protect road safety ^{[3] [4]}. These moves reflect policy conflict more than fresh evidence that all 62,000 holders are undocumented.

4. The specific case that intensified political scrutiny

A high‑profile fatal crash involving an accused undocumented truck driver renewed political attention to the licensing issue; the White House press secretary confirmed the driver had obtained a CDL in California, which critics used to argue for stricter federal oversight ^[5]. News coverage focused on that singular case to justify broad regulatory and legislative responses, but the underlying documents and audits connected to the broader “62k” number do not link every credential to undocumented status, nor do they show this crash was representative of the entire cohort of non‑domiciled CDL holders ^[5].

5. Legislative and policy proposals — tightening rules vs. administrative fixes

Congressional and executive proposals, such as the Non‑Domiciled CDL Integrity Act and other measures, target procedural integrity for commercial licensing and aim to align state issuance practices with federal standards; these proposals emphasize documentation verification rather than explicitly labeling all non‑domiciled holders as undocumented ^[6]. The legislative framing underscores safety and compliance goals and signals bipartisan interest in preventing improperly issued commercial credentials, but the proposals do not retroactively convert the administrative counts into a verified tally of undocumented CDL holders ^[6].

6. What the evidence does not support — separating numbers from immigration status

Available sources make clear that the 62,000 figure is an inventory of non‑domiciled credentials, not a verified count of undocumented immigrants with CDLs. Multiple reporting and official statements emphasize gaps in recordkeeping and improper issuances as audit findings — problems that justify oversight — but they stop short of demonstrating that all or most of those 62,000 are in the country illegally ^{[1] [2]}. Conflating administrative categories with immigration status risks overstating the empirical basis for the original claim.

7. Competing narratives and possible agendas shaping coverage

Federal officials and safety advocates emphasize audit results and specific crash cases to argue for stricter federal controls and immediate remedies, which advances a safety‑first narrative ^{[2] [4]}. Opponents and some state officials frame federal action as punitive or politically motivated, seeking to protect noncitizen workers lawfully present or highlight state autonomy ^{[3] [6]}. These competing framings reflect differing institutional priorities — safety enforcement versus immigration and state rights — and illustrate why single numbers can be used selectively to advance contrasting agendas.

8. Bottom line and open questions that remain

The claim that California issued 62,000 CDLs to illegal immigrants is not supported by the available evidence: the 62,000 number describes non‑domiciled CLP/CDL credentials, and the public audits and rules identify procedural problems and improperly issued non‑domiciled credentials, but do not classify all holders as undocumented ^{[1] [2]}. Key open questions include the exact immigration status breakdown of non‑domiciled holders, the scale of procedural defects across specific license batches, and how states will remedy verified noncompliance without unduly penalizing legally present workers — matters requiring more granular data than the cited sources currently provide.