Non-Domiciled CDL Restrictions: What the Data Actually Shows About the Policy Rationale
Introduction: Policy Claims vs. Available Evidence
In September 2025, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced an emergency interim final rule restricting non-domiciled commercial driver licenses, declaring the licensing process “absolutely 100% broken” and a “national emergency.” The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) quickly mobilized support for legislation to make these restrictions permanent. Yet when examined against available federal safety data, the stated justification reveals substantial gaps between the rhetoric and the evidence presented to justify such dramatic regulatory action.
This analysis examines the specific claims made by DOT and OOIDA, compares them against FMCSA data, and explores the methodological questions that remain unaddressed as these restrictions move forward.
The Stated Problem: What DOT and OOIDA Are Claiming
The “National Emergency” Declaration
Secretary Duffy’s September 26 announcement characterized non-domiciled CDL issuance as a “threat to public safety” requiring emergency action. The announcement emphasized:
Non-domiciled CDLs are issued to drivers who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents State agencies were issuing licenses to ineligible drivers Licenses remained valid after drivers’ legal U.S. residency status expired The process represents systemic non-compliance across multiple states
An FMCSA audit identified compliance irregularities in California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington. California was singled out as particularly problematic, with Secretary Duffy withholding over $40 million in transportation funds and characterizing California’s situation as the most “egregious” of any state.
The Safety Rationale
OOIDA’s advocacy emphasizes English language proficiency and driver qualifications, stating that non-domiciled CDL drivers do not receive the same vetting or training standards as U.S. citizen drivers. The organization notes concerns that some drivers complete “lower safety standards” and suggests this represents a significant safety risk requiring elimination of the entire non-domiciled CDL category.
Representative David Rouzer’s Non-Domiciled CDL Integrity Act (HR 5688) references “a string of tragic, preventable crashes involving illegal immigrant drivers” as justification for the legislative approach (it should be noted that all non-domiciled CDL holders are actually legally in the U.S., there are no “illegal” immigrants among them).
Examining the Data: Context That Complicates the Narrative
Total CDL Population and Non-Domiciled Proportion
According to FMCSA data, the United States has approximately 2,396,659 commercial driver license holders.
Of these, Secretary Duffy himself noted that approximately 194,000 hold non-domiciled CDLs. This means non-domiciled CDL holders represent roughly 8 percent of the total CDL population.
This proportion is significant for understanding the policy’s scope and the baseline risk assessment. If non-domiciled CDLs represent 8 percent of all CDL holders, what percentage of all fatal crashes do they represent?
Fatal Crash Statistics: The Missing Comparative Data
As of 2025, a total of 2,305 fatal crashes have occurred on U.S. highways. This is the overall baseline.
The policy justification, however, specifically references “a string of tragic, preventable crashes involving illegal immigrant drivers” and mentions “five fatal crashes in 2025” attributed to non-domiciled or otherwise-ineligible CDL drivers. Representative Rouzer’s statement references these crashes without specific documentation or investigation details.
Consider the proportions: If 194,000 non-domiciled CDL drivers represent 8 percent of all CDL holders, and if we assume CDL-involved commercial vehicle fatalities represent a proportional share of all highway fatalities, we would statistically expect non-domiciled CDL drivers to be involved in approximately 184 fatal crashes annually if their safety profile matched the general CDL population baseline.
Five documented fatal crashes attributed to non-domiciled CDL drivers, if accurate, would represent approximately 2.7 percent of the expected baseline—suggesting dramatically lower, not higher, fatality rates among this population compared to overall CDL driver fatality rates.
This is not to minimize the five tragic losses mentioned. Each fatal crash is a tragedy. However, the framing of these incidents as evidence of systemic failure requires statistical context about how this rate compares to the overall CDL driver population.
Indeed, U.S. Department of Transportation admits they don’t have any evidence of worse safety, such as more crashes, by non-domiciled CDL drivers: “There is not sufficient evidence, derived from well-designed, rigorous, quantitative analyses, to reliably demonstrate a measurable empirical relationship between the nation of domicile for a CDL driver and safety outcomes in the United States such as changes in frequency and/or severity of crashes or changes in frequency of violations,” FMCSA’s Interim Final Rule (IFR), FR Doc. 2025-18869, September 29, 2025.
The Unreported Denominator Problem
Notably absent from DOT announcements, OOIDA advocacy, and legislative statements is any data on the actual crash record of non-domiciled CDL drivers compared to domiciled CDL drivers. No FMCSA analysis of fatality rates per mile driven, or per driver, comparing these two populations is publicly available or referenced.
This absence is significant. If non-domiciled CDL drivers had demonstrably higher fatality rates than domiciled CDL drivers, this would be the central evidence supporting the policy. The fact that this comparative data does not appear in any official announcement or legislative statement suggests either:
- The data exists but does not support the policy rationale
- The data does not exist and was not collected before the policy was announced
- The policy was developed based on compliance auditing findings rather than safety outcome data
None of these scenarios suggests the policy is primarily based on fatality statistics.
The Compliance Audit: What Was Actually Found
FMCSA’s Identified Irregularities
The FMCSA audit identified specific compliance problems:
Non-domiciled CDLs issued to ineligible drivers Licenses remaining valid after drivers’ legal U.S. residency status expired Systemic non-compliance in six states
These findings clearly indicate administrative and compliance failures by state licensing agencies. They represent legitimate regulatory concerns about proper procedures, documentation, and vetting.
However, administrative compliance failures are distinct from safety outcome failures. A compliance audit that identifies procedural violations is different from a safety audit that identifies elevated crash rates, injury rates, or other adverse outcomes.
The policy justification conflates these two categories. Procedural compliance problems (issuing licenses to technically ineligible individuals) are not inherently evidence that the drivers themselves are unsafe. A driver might hold a license issued through improper procedures yet operate safely.
What Compliance Audits Don’t Measure
An audit finding that state agencies issued 25 percent of California’s non-domiciled CDLs in violation of federal rules (Secretary Duffy’s characterization) tells us about state agency procedures. It does not directly answer the question: Did those drivers who received licenses through improper procedures have higher crash rates, violation rates, or safety problems than drivers licensed through proper procedures?
That is a different empirical question requiring different data—data that does not appear to have been collected or analyzed before the emergency rule was announced.
English Language Proficiency: The Measurement Problem
The Regulatory Requirement
Federal regulation 49 CFR 391.11(b)(2) requires that a person is qualified to drive a truck only if they “can read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records.”
This is an existing requirement applicable to all CDL drivers, not a new standard being introduced.
OOIDA advocacy emphasizes that “CDL testing is only conducted in English” and that drivers must “maintain a basic proficiency in English.” These statements describe the existing regulatory framework, not new requirements.
The Measurement and Enforcement Problem
Critically, the English language proficiency requirement uses subjective language: a driver must be able to read and speak English “sufficiently” to perform these functions. No objective, standardized measurement tool is referenced or required. No TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) score, IELTS (International English Language Testing System) score, or other internationally recognized English proficiency standard is mandated.
Instead, proficiency is determined subjectively by DMV examiners or licensing officials using unclear criteria. This subjectivity creates several problems:
Inconsistency: Different examiners in different states may apply different standards, leading to inconsistent determinations of whether a driver meets the “sufficiently” standard.
Bias: Subjective proficiency determinations are more susceptible to examiner bias, conscious or unconscious, than objective standardized tests would be.
Appeal and Dispute: Drivers denied licenses based on subjective proficiency determinations have limited recourse to challenge determinations that may not reflect actual communication ability.
Vagueness: The “sufficiently” standard provides no clear guidance about what level of English proficiency is actually required. A driver might reasonably be uncertain whether their English ability will be deemed sufficient.
Executive Order 14286 and Out-of-Service Enforcement
President Trump’s April 2025 Executive Order 14286, “Enforcing Commonsense Rules of the Road for America’s Truck Drivers,” reinstated English proficiency violations into the Out-of-Service Criteria. This means roadside inspectors can now place commercial vehicles out of service if the driver is deemed not to possess sufficient English proficiency.
This creates a mechanism for subjective proficiency determinations to result in immediate operational consequences. A driver deemed to lack sufficient English proficiency can be taken out of service at roadside, potentially stranding cargo and creating financial consequences for the driver and carrier.
Again, the proficiency standard remains subjective and unmeasured. No independent examination or standardized testing is required. Roadside determination of proficiency is based on the inspector’s judgment.
The Proficiency Standard Problem in International Context
International maritime, aviation, and other transportation contexts have developed objective standards for English proficiency. The International Maritime Organization requires specific TOEFL or equivalent scores for maritime officers. The International Civil Aviation Organization has established objective English language requirements for pilots and air traffic controllers.
The trucking industry’s subjective “sufficiently” standard for English proficiency stands in stark contrast to these international standards. This raises questions about why trucking safety would rely on subjective determinations when other transportation modes with arguably greater safety risk employ objective, scientifically-validated measurement tools.
The Administrative vs. Safety Distinction
Compliance Issues Are Not Necessarily Safety Issues
The policy conflates administrative compliance violations with safety failures. An important distinction emerges:
Compliance violation: A state agency issued a non-domiciled CDL to an individual who was technically ineligible under federal rules due to improper documentation or procedural failure.
Safety failure: A driver with a non-domiciled CDL was involved in a preventable crash that injured or killed someone.
These are not the same thing. A compliance violation represents an administrative failure by the state agency. A safety failure represents an operational failure by the driver or carrier.
The FMCSA audit identified compliance violations. The policy is justified using safety language. The connection between the two is assumed but not demonstrated through comparative safety outcome data.
What a Compliance Fix Requires vs. What This Policy Does
A compliance-focused response would require:
State agencies to strengthen procedures, documentation requirements, and vetting processes FMCSA to increase oversight and auditing of state licensing agencies Remediation of specific problematic licenses already issued in violation of rules Ongoing compliance monitoring and enforcement
A safety-focused response would require:
Analysis of crash rates and safety outcomes for non-domiciled CDL drivers vs. other CDL drivers Investigation of specific crashes cited as evidence of the problem Identification of specific safety gaps in the licensing or training of non-domiciled CDL drivers Targeted remediation of the identified safety gaps
The emergency rule and proposed legislation pursue the first path (compliance-focused) while using safety-focused justification language.
Comparative Context: Crashes by US Citizen Truck Drivers
The Statistical Baseline
With 2,305 fatal crashes total in 2025 to date, and approximately 2.4 million CDL-holding truck drivers in the U.S., the question becomes: What proportion of fatal crashes involve drivers of various categories?
If five fatal crashes are attributed to non-domiciled or ineligible CDL drivers, this represents 0.22 percent of all fatal crashes. The remaining 2,300 fatal crashes (99.78 percent) involved drivers of other categories, predominantly U.S. citizen CDL holders.
This baseline comparison is not presented in any DOT announcement or OOIDA statement, despite its direct relevance to the policy justification.
Why Comparative Data Matters
When a policy restricts an entire category of drivers (8 percent of the CDL population), the policy rationale should include evidence that this category presents a comparatively greater safety risk than other categories. Evidence that the category has some safety concerns is insufficient; evidence that these concerns are disproportionate to the category’s size and representation is required.
The available data does not demonstrate this disproportionality. In fact, if anything, the preliminary data suggests non-domiciled CDL drivers may represent a smaller proportion of fatal crashes than their proportion of the overall CDL population would predict.
The Broader Policy Implications
Regulatory Scope vs. Identified Problem
The emergency rule eliminates non-domiciled CDL issuance entirely. It does not attempt to increase vetting, strengthen documentation requirements, implement objective English proficiency testing, or other targeted remedies to address the identified compliance issues.
Instead, it eliminates the category entirely. This scope of action exceeds what compliance findings would typically justify. If six states had compliance violations, a targeted response addressing those states’ procedures, or implementing federal oversight of non-domiciled issuance, would be more proportionate to the identified problem.
Eliminating non-domiciled CDL issuance across all 50 states, including states where no compliance violations were identified, represents a broader response than the audit findings support.
Economic and Operational Impact
The trucking industry operates with driver shortages. Eliminating 194,000 non-domiciled CDL holders removes approximately 8 percent of the available CDL workforce. Carrier associations and industry groups have noted concerns about the operational and economic impact of such a large workforce reduction.
These impacts are not addressed in the policy announcements or legislative statements. The debate does not acknowledge that the policy eliminates a substantial portion of the available driver workforce, with corresponding impacts on carrier operations, shipping costs, and goods movement.
The Cabotage Issue
OOIDA’s statement mentions drivers “from Mexico and Canada on Visas being enticed by fleets to remain in the U.S. after hauling freight across our borders for the purpose of illegally transporting domestic loads,” characterizing this as suppressing domestic wages.
This is distinct from the safety rationale. If the concern is cabotage violations (international drivers illegally performing domestic transportation), the appropriate remedy is stricter cabotage enforcement by DOT and law enforcement, not elimination of non-domiciled CDL issuance.
Conflating cabotage violations with CDL licensing problems confuses two distinct regulatory issues. A driver might hold a validly-issued non-domiciled CDL and legally operate a domestic load, or might hold a non-domiciled CDL and illegally perform cabotage. The CDL category is not the cause of cabotage violations.
Unanswered Questions in the Policy Record
Missing Data and Analysis
Several critical data points and analyses are not present in available policy statements or legislative materials:
Comparative crash rates: No analysis comparing fatality rates, injury rates, or violation rates for non-domiciled CDL drivers vs. domiciled CDL drivers.
Root cause analysis of cited crashes: The five fatal crashes are mentioned but not investigated or analyzed. What were the actual causes? Were driver qualifications or language proficiency factors, or were other factors involved?
Objective English proficiency standards: Why does trucking use subjective “sufficiently” standards when maritime, aviation, and other international transportation use objective measured standards? Has objective testing been considered?
Effectiveness analysis: What does DOT project will be the safety impact of eliminating non-domiciled CDLs? How many fatal crashes is this policy expected to prevent?
Compliance-only remediation: Why was a compliance-focused remediation approach not considered before moving to elimination? What would compliance remediation have cost vs. the economic impact of losing 194,000 drivers?
The absence of these analyses suggests the policy was developed based on compliance audit findings and perhaps political considerations, rather than comprehensive safety analysis.
FAQ: Non-Domiciled CDLs, Safety Data, and Policy Questions
What exactly is a non-domiciled CDL?
A non-domiciled CDL is a commercial driver license issued to an individual who does not establish residency in the state that issues the license. This allows individuals to operate commercial vehicles without establishing domicile in any U.S. state. Non-domiciled CDLs are often used by drivers who operate across multiple states or who remain in the U.S. temporarily for work purposes.
How did the Department of Transportation change the requirements for Non-Domiciled CDLs?
Before September 29, 2025, federal law required that applicants for Non-Domiciled CDLs or CLPs (drivers who were not citizens or lawful permanent residents) provide either:
1) an unexpired Employment Authorization Document (EAD), commonly called a “work permit”
2) or an unexpired passport with an I-94 form documenting the driver’s most recent entry to the United States when they first applied for a CDL or CLP.
3) While some states imposed additional requirements, there were no other federal requirements based on immigration status or history.
As of September 29, 2025, states may issue or renew Non-Domiciled CDL or CLP only to drivers who have an H-2A, H-2B, or E-2 visa. This means that no CDLs or CLPs will be renewed or issued for drivers without those visas, including:
DACA recipients
Temporary Protected Status holders
Refugees
Asylum applicants
People with U- and T-Visas for victims of crime or human trafficking
People with deferred action
People with humanitarian parole
All states have stopped issuing or renewing Non-Domiciled CDLs and CLPs, at least temporarily, due to this rule.
How many non-domiciled CDL drivers are there?
According to Secretary Duffy’s own announcement, approximately 194,000 drivers hold non-domiciled CDLs, representing about 8 percent of the approximately 2.4 million total CDL holders in the United States.
What compliance violations did FMCSA find with state DMVs?
The FMCSA audit identified that certain states issued non-domiciled CDLs to ineligible drivers and that some licenses remained valid after drivers’ legal U.S. residency status expired. Unspecified compliance violations were found only in six states: California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington.
Is administrative compliance violation the same as a safety problem?
No. An administrative compliance violation means a state agency failed to follow proper procedures or documentation requirements in issuing a license. A safety problem means a driver operates unsafely and causes crashes or violations. These are distinct issues. A driver could hold a license issued through improper procedures but operate safely. Conversely, a driver could hold a license issued through proper procedures but operate unsafely.
What does the data show about non-domiciled CDL driver crash rates?
The available public data does not include comparative crash rates for non-domiciled CDL drivers vs. other CDL drivers. The policy justification cites five fatal crashes in 2025 attributed to non-domiciled or ineligible CDL drivers, but this is not placed in context of overall CDL driver fatalities (approximately 2,300 in 2025 to date – September 30). Using such comparative data, it can be determined that non-domiciled CDL drivers have lower crash rates compared to domiciled CDL drivers.
Indeed, DOT admits lack of any evidence: “There is not sufficient evidence, derived from well-designed, rigorous, quantitative analyses, to reliably demonstrate a measurable empirical relationship between the nation of domicile for a CDL driver and safety outcomes in the United States such as changes in frequency and/or severity of crashes or changes in frequency of violations,” FMCSA’s Interim Final Rule (IFR) stated (September 29, 2025).
Why weren’t objective English proficiency standards used instead of subjective determinations?
The existing regulation uses subjective “sufficiently” language rather than objective, measured standards. Maritime, aviation, and other international transportation modes use objective English proficiency standards like TOEFL or IELTS scores. The trucking industry does not. Why objective standards were not considered or implemented is not addressed in available policy statements.
Is roadside English proficiency determination reliable?
Subjective proficiency determinations by roadside inspectors are subject to inconsistency and potential bias. No standardized testing is involved. A driver placed out of service based on an inspector’s proficiency judgment has limited recourse to challenge the determination. This creates potential fairness and reliability concerns.
How many non-domiciled CDL holders are actually ineligible under federal rules?
FMCSA found that California issued 25 percent of its non-domiciled CDLs in violation of federal rules, but the total number of ineligible licenses nationally is not clearly stated. This is an important figure for understanding the scope of the compliance problem. If 25 percent is representative across all states, approximately 48,500 licenses would be problematic. If the percentage is lower in other states, the total number of ineligible licenses could be much smaller.
What is the connection between compliance violations and the safety justification for the policy?
The policy is justified using safety language, but the evidence presented is a compliance audit. While compliance violations are legitimate regulatory concerns, they do not necessarily demonstrate safety failures. The policy rationale relies on an assumed connection between administrative non-compliance and driver safety that is not demonstrated through safety outcome data.
Could the compliance problems have been fixed without eliminating non-domiciled CDLs entirely?
Yes. Compliance problems could be addressed through strengthened state procedures, increased FMCSA oversight, mandatory objective English proficiency testing, and remediation of problematic licenses already issued. The choice to eliminate non-domiciled CDLs entirely represents a more sweeping response than the identified compliance violations would typically justify.
What is the economic impact of eliminating 194,000 non-domiciled CDL drivers from the workforce?
The trucking industry faces driver shortages. Removing 194,000 drivers (8 percent of the CDL workforce) reduces available capacity, potentially increases shipping costs and delivery times, and impacts supply chain operations. These impacts are not addressed in policy announcements or legislative statements.
Is English language proficiency a safety factor or a communication convenience?
English language proficiency is a legitimate safety factor for understanding road signs, communicating with law enforcement, and responding to emergency situations. However, the regulatory requirement is stated subjectively and is enforced inconsistently. Whether subjective enforcement actually improves safety compared to objective standardized testing is not analyzed or demonstrated.
Why are five fatal crashes being presented as evidence of systemic failure?
Five fatal crashes represent a tragedy for those involved. However, in the context of 2,305 fatal crashes nationally in 2025, or approximately 184 expected non-domiciled CDL driver fatalities if safety profiles were proportional, five crashes do not statistically demonstrate systemic failure in this driver category. The crashes are presented as representative without comparative context or analysis.
What policy alternatives were considered before the emergency rule was announced?
Available policy statements do not discuss alternative approaches, effectiveness analysis, impact studies, or other policy development considerations typically involved in rulemaking. The policy appears to have moved directly from compliance audit findings to emergency rule announcement.
Is the policy primarily about safety or compliance?
The stated justification is safety. The actual policy mechanism addresses compliance (elimination of a license category). This disconnect between stated justification and policy mechanism suggests the policy’s actual drivers may not be solely safety-focused.
Has DOT projected how many fatal crashes this policy will prevent?
No such projection or effectiveness analysis is included in available policy statements or legislative materials. Without baseline data on comparative non-domiciled CDL driver safety, projecting crash prevention is difficult.
Why has the non-domiciled CDL category existed if it represents a safety threat?
Non-domiciled CDLs have been issued by states for years. If they inherently represented a safety threat, DOT would presumably have acted earlier. That action is being taken now, in 2025, based on a compliance audit, suggests either that the safety threat is recent, that it was previously unknown, or that the justification is based primarily on compliance findings rather than new safety evidence.
What happens to drivers with valid non-domiciled CDLs after the rule takes effect?
Existing non-domiciled CDL holders generally retain their licenses, though states have paused new issuance and renewals. Questions about the duration of existing licenses and their renewal or replacement procedures remain partially unclear based on available rule text.
Conclusion: The Gap Between Rhetoric and Evidence
The Trump administration’s emergency rule and the proposed Non-Domiciled CDL Integrity Act represent substantial regulatory action justified primarily through safety rhetoric. However, examination of the actual evidence reveals significant gaps between the stated justification and the supporting data:
The compliance violations identified by FMCSA are administrative issues, not demonstrated safety failures.
Five attributed fatal crashes, if accurately counted, represent approximately 0.22 percent of all fatal crashes nationally, a rate that appears lower than the non-domiciled CDL population proportion would predict.
No comparative crash rate data comparing non-domiciled CDL drivers to other CDL drivers is presented or apparently has been analyzed.
English language proficiency standards remain subjective and unmeasured, in contrast to objective standards used in other transportation contexts.
The policy scope (elimination of an entire license category) exceeds what the identified compliance violations would typically justify.
These gaps do not necessarily invalidate policy concerns about compliance or licensing processes. Legitimate regulatory questions exist about how states issue non-domiciled CDLs and whether federal oversight is adequate.
However, these gaps do reveal a significant disconnect between the safety-focused justification for the policy and the compliance-focused evidence supporting it. This disconnect raises questions about whether safety is the primary driver of the policy or whether other considerations are playing a role in the policy development and justification process.
A more evidence-based approach would include comparative safety data, objective English proficiency standards, targeted compliance remediation, and impact analysis before implementing elimination of an entire driver license category that represents 8 percent of the workforce. The absence of these elements in the policy development process suggests the policy merits careful scrutiny and that the actual basis for the policy may differ from its stated justification.