Please read Section 201(3)-(4) of the Real ID Act:
(3) OFFICIAL PURPOSE- The term 'official purpose' includes but is not limited to accessing Federal facilities, boarding federally regulated commercial aircraft, entering nuclear power plants, and any other purposes that the Secretary shall determine.
(4) SECRETARY- The term 'Secretary' means the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Source: https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/real-id-act-text.pdf
In other words, the Secretary of Homeland Security has unilateral authority to expand the uses of real IDs. In their 2008 rule, DHS even doubled down:
"DHS does not agree that it must seek the approval of Congress as a prerequisite to changing the definition in the future (except of course to remove one of the three statutorily-mandated official purposes) as § 201(3) of the Act gives discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security to determine other purposes."
That could include voting, accessing medical care, etc. Do you trust Kristi Noem with this power? Do you trust every future secretary with this power?
If not, I urge you to not get a real id or real id driver's license if you don't have one, or turn in your real id for a state id or state driver's license if you do have one, and instead get a passport. The DHS cannot enforce anything if the majority of Americans refuse to get real ids. Let us not just bow down to a national id that invades our privacy and could be used to control us.
I don't think you're really addressing what I said. You took one thing out of it you didn't like to argue about and left the rest as if it didn't exist.
There is nothing stopping this establishment (regime, government, whatever you want to call it) from deciding that the Real ID is the only valid government ID and that state ID or Driver's License isn't a valid form of identification. You posit that the Real ID could in some way be invalidated or change the rules making it unstable for things like voting or identification in certain circumstances and that this is a reason to get a passport or a State ID.
This neglects states where it is illegal to have both a state ID and a driver's license, people who can't afford both, people who can't afford a passport etc.
Most state websites will mention somewhere that a state ID acts as a form of identification within the state. Meaning the federal government could absolutely not consider it a valid form of identification. Other states aren't even required to take your state ID as a valid form of identification.
You're also neglecting that plenty of states haven't enacted a mandatory Real ID program yet or it hasn't gone into affect yet, however that may happen in a year, two years etc and so not getting a Real ID upon renewal will end up costing them more money they don't necessarily have.
Your reasons for not getting a Real ID aren't even particularly clear and you didn't answer any clarifying questions.
What makes the Real ID more dangerous than a State ID or Passport?
How much more expensive is it to get a Passport than a Real ID?
Is the process to receive a Real ID in some way more of a risk to personal privacy?
If it is a risk, what are the risks to personal privacy while getting a State ID or Passport?
Is there a reason to believe that this regime or one in the future will preclude Real ID from being used to prove things like citizenship status or voting rights?