Under 49 U.S.C. Section 31311(a)(12)(A), states may issue commercial driver’s licenses to individuals not domiciled in the United States. The original intent was straightforward: enable qualified foreign nationals from countries without U.S.-equivalent testing standards to legally operate commercial vehicles. The keyword there is qualified.
The problem? Implementation was left largely to the states, and the regulations governing non-domiciled CDLs lived in policy guidance rather than codified federal law. FMCSA published requirements in 49 CFR Parts 383 and 384, but enforcement was inconsistent at best, nonexistent at worst. States interpreted the rules differently. Some followed them. Many didn’t.
The September 2025 interim final rule from DOT Secretary Sean Duffy finally acknowledged what we’ve been screaming about for years. According to FMCSA’s 2025 Annual Program Reviews, approximately one in four non-domiciled CDLs issued by California were not compliant with federal requirements. The agency has already confirmed that improperly issued non-domiciled CDLs were issued across at least six states: California, Colorado, Washington, Texas, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota. And they expect that number to grow.
California’s AB 60 Opening Pandora’s Box
In October 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 60, authored by Assembly Member Luis Alejo. The bill allowed California residents to obtain driver’s licenses regardless of immigration status. Since taking effect in 2015, more than a million undocumented immigrants have received AB 60 licenses.
Federal regulations require a Social Security number to obtain a commercial driver’s license. The Transportation Committee specifically recommended amending the bill to exclude CDLs due to federal compliance requirements. They warned that failure to comply could put California at risk of losing federal highway funds.
Despite those warnings, California implemented the program in a way that allowed AB 60 license holders to obtain Commercial Learner’s Permits. Once you have a CLP, and if you can produce work authorization documents, you’ve got a backdoor pathway to a non-domiciled CDL. The California DMV’s own website states that applicants may apply for a CLP, but must have a CA driver’s license before getting one. No distinction is made about how that license was obtained.
This is exactly how the Singh case happened. Work authorization was initially denied under one administration, approved under another. A CLP obtained. A CDL from Washington in 2023. Another CDL from California in 2024. Multiple failures of the written exam. No meaningful English proficiency assessment. And three people are dead on a Florida highway.
Texas and The ELP Exemption
California isn’t alone in creating dangerous licensing pathways. Per Texas Transportation Code Section 522.043(b), the state prohibits requiring English language proficiency for intrastate-only CDL holders. Texas actively prohibited the enforcement of a basic safety requirement.
The Texas Administrative Code and the official Texas Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Handbook supported this stance, noting that ELP only applies to interstate drivers. When I directly messaged leadership at Texas DPS, the agency confirmed it does not have a formal FMCSA-approved exemption. Texas simply never enforced English proficiency for intrastate drivers before the 2014-2015 FMCSA enforcement directive. And still hasn’t. Or didn’t, until Governor Abbott’s September 2025 directive tried to close the loophole, but did it? This Texas loophole is law; the Governor making directives contrary to law is not legal. The law has to be changed, and that takes legislation.
This exercise of enforcement discretion may have violated the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, which provides states with funding in exchange for aligning with FMCSA safety regulations. Under 49 CFR 350.305, the allowable state-level variances are limited. English proficiency isn’t one of them. Texas has been receiving federal safety enforcement funding while actively undermining federal safety requirements. The data speaks for itself: Texas led all states in July 2025 with 5,378 ELP violations, according to TruckSafe’s analysis of FMCSA data.
The Most Virtuous Program in Existence: The ELDT Program
When Congress mandated Entry-Level Driver Training in 2012, the industry expected meaningful reform. What we got was a framework that standardized curriculum but left the most critical variable unaddressed: time behind the wheel.
Per FMCSA’s own guidance, there are no minimum training hours required for ELDT. None. The program requires training providers to register with the Training Provider Registry and cover 30-plus theory topics. Drivers must demonstrate proficiency as determined by the training provider. But the federal government explicitly declined to mandate how long that should take.
Some states impose their own minimum hour requirements. California and Washington, for example, require additional behind-the-wheel time. But many states don’t. Idaho doesn’t. And the ELDT regulations allow training providers to determine when a driver is proficient. In theory, a CDL school could certify someone as proficient after minimal seat time, upload their completion to the federal database, and move on to the next paying customer.
The Fraud Factory
Even when the regulations exist on paper, enforcement depends on the integrity of those administering the tests. And the evidence suggests that integrity is in short supply.
In August 2025, a federal grand jury in Louisiana indicted six individuals, including two Office of Motor Vehicles employees, three third-party testers, and a restaurant owner who acted as a broker. The scheme operated from August 2020 to February 2024. Four years. Text messages showed payments of $400 to falsely report passing CDL skills tests. One applicant allegedly paid $6,500 to bypass all required training and testing.
In Massachusetts, the golden handshake scheme operated from 2019 to 2023. State Police troopers gave passing scores to applicants described in their own communications as brain-dead in exchange for bottled water and snowblowers. Former State Police Sergeant Gary Cederquist was convicted on 48 counts for orchestrating the scheme, providing false passing scores to 40 CDL applicants.
In New York, a 51-count indictment exposed a CDL cheating scheme involving multiple DMV employees. One supervisor’s sister reportedly took exams in disguise, complete with fake facial hair, to impersonate applicants. Facilitators charged $1,800 to $2,500 per applicant.
In Pennsylvania, third-party examiner Roberto Correas pleaded guilty in 2022 to wire fraud after providing pre-signed CDL skills exam score sheets to co-conspirators who completed them with passing scores for drivers who never took the test.
These aren’t isolated incidents. These are systematic failures across multiple states, spanning years, involving DMV employees, third-party testers, and organized fraud networks. How many similar schemes are currently operating in states where we haven’t caught them yet?
The Medical Examiner Problem
Then there’s the medical certification piece. The National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners was supposed to stamp out fraud in driver medical certifications when FMCSA first attempted to build it 16 years ago. Earlier this year, FMCSA announced it would remove nearly 16,000 certified medical examiners from the registry for failing to establish required login accounts, complete recertification training, or update their profiles.
FMCSA audits have uncovered over 1,200 fraudulent medical certificates in recent years. The agency is implementing enhanced monitoring in 2024 and 2025, but the damage is already done. How many drivers are operating today with medical cards they shouldn’t have? How many examiners rubber-stamped certifications without conducting proper examinations?
The 19-State Problem
Currently, 19 states plus the District of Columbia issue driver’s licenses to individuals regardless of immigration status: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.
These licenses are typically marked “Not for Federal Purposes” and cannot be used for air travel or for federal identification. But each of these state licenses can serve as an on-ramp to a CLP, which in turn can lead to a CDL, depending on how each state interprets and implements federal regulations.
Minnesota’s Driver’s License for All, Regardless of Immigration Status bill, signed by Governor Tim Walz in 2023, joined 18 other states in providing IDs to all residents. Minnesota’s Commercial Driver Academy partners with community-based organizations and is registered on FMCSA’s Training Provider Registry. The state receives WIOA funding that can be used to pay for CDL training. The pathway exists.
The Federal Response
On September 29, 2025, the FMCSA published an interim final rule that significantly limits the eligibility of non-domiciled CDL holders. Under the new rule, only individuals in select employment-based nonimmigrant categories, specifically H-2A agricultural workers, H-2B non-agricultural workers, and E-2 treaty investors, remain eligible. Asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients are no longer eligible for non-domiciled CDLs.
Secretary Duffy ordered California to pause issuance of non-domiciled CDLs, identify all unexpired licenses issued to non-domiciled individuals, and revoke and reissue all non-compliant CDLs. California had 30 days to comply or face withholding of federal highway funds, starting at nearly $160 million in the first year.
As of early 2026, the California DMV has extended cancellation dates for approximately 17,000 non-domiciled CDLs while the state continues to review compliance. The emergency rule is doing what years of lax enforcement failed to do. But it’s reactive, not proactive. Three people are dead on Florida’s Turnpike. How many more preventable tragedies occurred while regulators looked the other way?
The Real Issue Is Licensing Standards and Accountability
Whether you frame this as an immigration issue, an ELP issue, or a state’s rights issue, the root causes are the same: licensing standards have been systematically undermined by a combination of inadequate federal regulations, inconsistent state implementation, fraudulent examiners, and political considerations that prioritized everything except safety.
The driver shortage narrative provided convenient political cover. Never mind that current truck driving employment stands at approximately 3.55 million drivers. Never mind that we’ve removed significant barriers that previously kept unqualified prospects out. Never mind that over 95 percent of Class 8 trucks now have automatic transmissions, reducing the skill threshold dramatically from even 20 years ago.
The shortage narrative was manufactured. The barriers were reduced. And now we’re paying for it in blood.
Licensing standards are only half the problem. The bigger issue is carrier accountability. At the end of the day, every accident on our highways comes down to three things: the people a carrier chooses to hire, the vehicles a carrier chooses to purchase, and the decisions a carrier makes about who and what to put on the highway.
State licensing agencies can fail. Federal regulations can have loopholes. Training programs can be fraudulent. But carriers have the final say on who gets behind the wheel of their trucks. They control the hiring process. They control driver qualification files. They control ongoing monitoring and compliance. When a carrier puts an unqualified driver on the road, that’s a carrier decision.
Look at the Singh case. White Hawk Carriers Inc. employed a driver who had failed his written CDL exam 10 times. A driver who held CDLs from two different states simultaneously, violating federal single-license requirements. A driver who couldn’t communicate with law enforcement or read road signs. Proper driver screening during the qualification process would have recognized these red flags. It didn’t happen.
Federal regulations require carriers to obtain three years of driving records before hiring U.S. drivers. They require verification of employment history for the previous ten years. But when it comes to foreign-domiciled drivers, the system breaks down. States aren’t required to obtain records from home countries. Employers are not required to verify international driving history. This creates a two-tiered safety system where the drivers with the least verifiable backgrounds face the lowest screening standards.
The Westfield Transport Case
If you want to understand what carrier accountability looks like when it fails catastrophically, look at Westfield Transport and the Jarheads tragedy. On June 21, 2019, seven members of the Jarheads Motorcycle Club, Marine Corps veterans and their spouses, were killed on U.S. Route 2 in Randolph, New Hampshire, when a Westfield Transport driver collided with their group.
The driver, Volodymyr Zhukovskyy, was acquitted of criminal charges in 2022. But the story didn’t end there. What federal investigators uncovered about Westfield Transport’s operations should have led to consequences that make other carriers think twice about cutting corners.
According to court filings and federal indictments, Westfield Transport had faced over 60 violations in the 24 months before the crash. About one in five inspections of its vehicles ended with federal investigators issuing temporary out-of-service orders. The company’s owners, brothers Dunyadar and Dartanayan Gasanov, were accused of systematically falsifying driving logs to evade hours-of-service regulations. They allegedly instructed employees to deactivate electronic logging devices to exceed allowable driving hours.
According to the National Transportation Safety Board, the company’s owners tried to add Zhukovskyy to their insurance policy an hour after the fatal crash. Not before. After. They didn’t check Zhukovskyy’s driving record before hiring him. When federal investigators asked Dunyadar Gasanov how long he had known the driver, he said he had met him the day the driver was hired. Investigators later determined Gasanov had known Zhukovskyy for years and was aware of his prior DUI charge.
This was a carrier that knew exactly what it was doing, fostered a culture of non-compliance, and put a driver it knew to be problematic behind the wheel of a commercial vehicle. Seven people are dead because of it.
When Bad Actors Get Caught, Justice Fails
What happened to the Gasanovs? Dunyadar Gasanov pleaded guilty in August 2024 to three counts of making false statements to federal investigators. His sentence? Supervised release, a prohibition on commercial driving, and a $300 special assessment. Not years in prison. Supervised release. For a carrier owner whose systematic disregard for safety regulations contributed to seven deaths.
His brother Dartanayan Gasanov is a different story. He was offered a no-time plea agreement by federal prosecutors. The same kind of minimal-consequence deal his brother accepted. And he turned it down. His initial attempt to plead guilty in 2021 was rejected by U.S. District Court Judge Mark Mastroianni, who said he wasn’t satisfied that Dartanayan was knowingly and voluntarily admitting to the alleged offenses. Now Dartanayan Gasanov goes to trial.
Federal prosecutors offered a plea deal to a carrier owner whose company’s documented violations, ELD manipulation, and failed program management directly enabled a crash that killed seven Marine veterans. The message that sends to other bad actors in the industry is clear: even if you get caught, you’ll be offered a slap on the wrist.
The Westfield Transport case should be a landmark moment for carrier accountability. Instead, it’s becoming another example of how the system protects the people who profit from cutting safety corners while the victims and their families wait years for anything resembling justice.
What Needs to Change
First, non-domiciled CDL regulations need to be codified into federal law, not left as policy guidance subject to interpretation.
Second, ELDT needs minimum hour requirements. If we’re serious about safety, we can’t leave seat time to the discretion of training providers incentivized to push students through as quickly as possible.
Third, MCSAP funding should be conditioned on actual compliance, not on promises. States that openly defy federal safety regulations shouldn’t receive federal enforcement funding. Period.
Fourth, third-party examiner oversight needs to be dramatically expanded. The current model of private contractors conducting CDL skills tests with minimal oversight has proven to be the system’s weakest link.
Fifth, database integration between FMCSA, state licensing agencies, and immigration verification systems needs to actually work. The Singh case proved that a driver could hold CDLs from multiple states simultaneously, in violation of federal single-license requirements, without anyone noticing.
These aren’t radical proposals. They’re basic competence. And until they’re implemented, we’ll continue to see preventable tragedies on our nation’s highways.
Three people died on Florida’s Turnpike because the system failed at every level. The question isn’t whether reform is needed. The question is whether we’ll actually do something about it before the next preventable tragedy forces our hand again.
