(CALIFORNIA) California is revoking 17,000 commercial driver’s licenses issued to immigrants after a federal audit found the credentials violated national trucking rules, escalating a political fight with the Trump administration over who was eligible for the licenses and whether the state followed the law. The California Department of Motor Vehicles has notified the 17,000 drivers that their licenses will expire in 60 days, while the U.S. Department of Transportation has threatened to withhold $160 million in federal funding if the state does not comply.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy framed the move as a correction of widespread violations.
“After weeks of claiming they did nothing wrong, Gavin Newsom and California have been caught red-handed. Now that we’ve exposed their lies, 17,000 illegally issued trucking licenses are being revoked. This is just the tip of the iceberg. My team will continue to force California to prove they have removed every illegal immigrant from behind the wheel of semi-trucks and school buses,”
he said, citing the findings of a nationwide compliance review. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, part of the department, reported that “more than one in four of the non-domiciled CDL records sampled in California failed to comply with federal regulations,” a conclusion that became the basis for pushing California to invalidate the licenses.
Governor Gavin Newsom’s office rejected the federal narrative and said the state’s actions were driven by state law, not immigration status. The governor’s office said the revocations were due to “inconsistency with California law,” arguing that the federal government is applying standards that did not exist when many of the licenses were issued. It further said the affected drivers “had been granted work authorization by the federal government,” and therefore were not “illegal immigrants,” as Duffy alleged. Newsom’s office criticized the administration’s public statements as “lies” and a “sad and desperate attempt to please his dear leader,” underscoring how the dispute has hardened into a political fight as much as a legal one.
At the center of the conflict is how California handled “non-domiciled” commercial driver’s licenses—CDLs issued to people who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents but may be authorized to work. The federal audit pointed to documentation lapses and eligibility assessments that it said ran afoul of federal CDL standards. California countered that the federal agency is judging past practices by new rules and that its process followed guidance approved by the Department of Homeland Security at the time. The state stressed that many of the drivers now losing their credentials are immigrants with valid federal work permits, not undocumented drivers, and that it had no policy of waiving safety standards.
The federal push gathered momentum after high-profile crashes involving immigrant drivers issued California CDLs. In Florida, Harjinder Singh, 28, was arrested after allegedly making an unauthorized U-turn that led to a crash killing three people. Officials said Singh, who crossed into the United States illegally in 2018, failed English and road sign tests after the crash and was charged with three counts of vehicular homicide. In San Bernardino County, California, Jashanpreet Singh, an undocumented immigrant from India, was charged with vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated after a fiery crash that killed three people. Federal sources said he was first encountered by Border Patrol in March 2022 and released pending an immigration hearing. While California insisted its licensing decisions were lawful at the time, these cases intensified scrutiny from federal authorities and added emotional weight to the calls for revoking improperly issued licenses.
The stakes are concrete for the 17,000 affected drivers, many of whom built careers in long-haul freight, local delivery, and even school transport across California. The DMV’s notification gives them a 60-day runway before licenses expire, but it does not erase the uncertainty for families whose household income depends on commercial driving. State officials emphasized, again, that the drivers had federal permission to work and were screened under the rules then in place. Advocates warn that stripping these licenses has immediate consequences for immigrants with work authorization, who often took on demanding routes that other workers shunned.
Truck driving schools, which help funnel new drivers into the industry, say immigrants make up much of their student base. One school’s spokesperson said, “Most of their students weren’t born in the United States. Not a lot of people that have the citizenship or residency want to do this. It’s people that come from other countries with work permits.” That reality reflects a broader labor pattern in California, where immigrants fill critical roles in logistics and transportation, sectors that power the state’s ports, warehouses, and supermarket supply chains. With thousands of commercial driver’s licenses now set to lapse, operators warn of ripple effects that could tighten labor in already strained parts of the trucking market.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s audit is part of a broader national effort to tighten oversight of how states issue and renew commercial credentials for non-citizens. The agency’s finding that “more than one in four of the non-domiciled CDL records sampled in California failed to comply with federal regulations” gave the Trump administration a number to lean on as it demanded corrective action. According to federal officials, California had to act or risk losing $160 million tied to highway and safety programs. California complied with the revocations but denied the underlying allegation that it knowingly violated federal rules, setting up a showdown over the legal standards that applied when the licenses were issued.
California argues that federal requirements have shifted, particularly for applicants with temporary or conditional status, and that Washington is retroactively applying new criteria to old cases. Newsom’s office said the state followed Department of Homeland Security guidance when it vetted applicants and issued credentials, and that immigration status was not a disqualifier for those “granted work authorization by the federal government.” For the governor’s office, the core of the dispute is not whether California should meet federal safety standards—it says it did—but whether the federal government is rewriting the record to score political points. The sharp language—“lies” and a “sad and desperate attempt to please his dear leader”—reflects how thoroughly the issue has been swept into national politics, even as thousands of working drivers are left to navigate the fallout.
For drivers, the practical questions are immediate. Some may be able to reapply under updated documentation rules if they still hold valid federal work authorization and can meet current verification standards. Others, especially those whose underlying immigration cases have shifted over time, may find themselves shut out of commercial driving altogether. Employers now face the task of verifying which drivers remain authorized to operate and how to replace those who cannot continue. That could prove difficult in a state where many fleets already report challenges recruiting qualified drivers for routes that require overnight schedules, long hours, or specialized endorsements.
Federal officials say the crackdown is about safety and compliance, not politics. Secretary Duffy’s promise to keep pressure on California—
“My team will continue to force California to prove they have removed every illegal immigrant from behind the wheel of semi-trucks and school buses”
—signals that the department will keep auditing and may target other states if similar issues are found. California counters that its own safety record stands on its merits and that the audit’s core statistic is being misused, since the analysis involves “non-domiciled” records and, in the state’s view, applies new interpretations to past decisions. The state has not disclosed a breakdown of how many of the 17,000 affected drivers failed purely administrative checks, such as document renewal timing, versus how many might not pass today’s eligibility rules.
The two fatal crash cases brought forward by federal officials—Harjinder Singh in Florida and Jashanpreet Singh in San Bernardino County—have added a painful human backdrop to an already charged debate. In both cases, three people died. Officials in Florida pointed to English and signage test failures after the crash, while federal sources tied the California case to an undocumented driver who had previously been released pending immigration proceedings. Safety advocates say such tragedies underscore the need for strict vetting and continuous compliance. Community groups representing immigrants say it is unfair to punish thousands of other drivers who followed the process and “had been granted work authorization by the federal government,” as the governor’s office put it, especially when the dispute centers on rules that may have changed after the fact.
California’s DMV has begun sending notices to the 17,000 drivers and working through the mechanics of winding down those commercial privileges. The agency has not said how many of the affected drivers operate interstate routes versus local or school-related transport, nor has it provided a timeline for reviewing any reapplications under current rules. Employers are bracing for complications. Large trucking companies often maintain compliance teams to track CDL status; smaller operators may struggle if several drivers lose their credentials at once. Classroom providers and test sites are also watching for sudden shifts in demand as displaced drivers consider whether they can shore up their documentation and test again.
The broader policy dispute hinges on when federal CDL rules changed and which standards governed non-domiciled applicants at the time California issued the licenses. The state says its process was greenlit by federal homeland security officials and was “inconsistency with California law” only in a narrow sense that does not imply safety risks. Federal officials reject that argument and say the audit’s one-in-four noncompliance rate speaks for itself. While neither side has published the full audit methodology, the transportation department leveraged its funding power to force the state’s hand, and California complied while protesting the premise.
Industry voices warn that the episode could deter future applicants, especially immigrants who hold valid work permits but fear sudden rule changes. One truck school spokesperson’s assessment—“Most of their students weren’t born in the United States. Not a lot of people that have the citizenship or residency want to do this. It’s people that come from other countries with work permits”—captures how reliant the sector has become on newcomers. California’s logistics economy, from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to inland warehouses, depends on steady flows of licensed drivers to move goods. Any disruption to that pipeline, even a temporary one, can ripple into delays and higher costs.
As the revocations proceed, legal and political maneuvering continues in parallel. California officials have not said whether they will challenge the audit findings formally, seek to recoup the threatened funds through negotiation, or simply adjust to the stricter federal interpretations going forward. For the Trump administration, the action marks a visible enforcement move that blends immigration policy and transportation safety in a way likely to resonate with its base. For drivers and their families, the next two months are decisive: without a clear pathway to revalidation, thousands could be forced out of jobs they trained for and held with state approval.
The federal agency at the center of the audit, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, has said it will continue nationwide reviews of state CDL programs, signaling potential scrutiny beyond California. State officials elsewhere are watching to see how the conflict resolves, especially if they issued licenses to immigrants with work authorization under similar interpretations of federal guidance.
CDL 60‑Day Notice Deadline Calculator
As of November 14, 2025, California officials say the revocations are moving ahead, the 60-day notices are in effect, and the disagreement with Washington remains unresolved. The numbers are stark—17,000 commercial driver’s licenses in limbo, $160 million in funding on the line, and two governments locked in a public argument over who failed whom. For California’s immigrants with commercial driver’s licenses, the outcome will decide whether they remain on the road or must park their livelihoods, at least for now.
This Article in a Nutshell
A federal FMCSA audit found documentation lapses in California’s issuance of CDLs to non-domiciled applicants, prompting the state DMV to revoke 17,000 commercial licenses with 60-day expiration notices. The U.S. DOT threatened to withhold $160 million unless California complied. California says the drivers had federal work authorization and that past practices followed DHS guidance; it argues new federal interpretations are being applied retroactively. The dispute has political overtones, raises safety and labor concerns, and leaves drivers and employers facing immediate uncertainty.
