In recent years, universal license recognition (ULR) has expanded as a state-level reform to make it easier for workers holding occupational and professional licenses to relocate within the United States. The idea is straightforward: If you are licensed and in good standing in one state, another state should recognize that license instead of forcing you to repeat training, exams and administrative hoops.
However, the bigger opportunity lies internationally. The principles behind U.S.-to-U.S. license transfers can also underpin a smarter, standards-based method for recognizing foreign credentials.
The U.S. has persistent labor shortages in many licensed fields, especially in health care and the skilled trades. At the same time, the country has a large pool of underused talent among immigrants who arrive with substantial education and professional experience. Too often, foreign-trained professionals end up working far below their skill level because licensing systems do not recognize what they already know and can do. That is a loss for the individual, for employers and for communities that need skilled workers.
Of course, foreign credential recognition is not as simple as state-to-state license transfers. Countries regulate differently. Training pathways vary. Scope of practice is not always identical. The goal is not to lower standards but to evaluate competence in a rigorous yet realistic way rather than defaulting to years of training duplication that may add little public safety value.
This is where many systems go wrong. Licensing boards often rely on frameworks such as “substantial equivalence,” which turn recognition into a line-by-line audit of training hours, coursework and program structure. That approach creates unnecessary barriers even for domestic transfers. Applied to foreign credentials, it almost guarantees delay or denial because international pathways rarely mirror U.S. requirements exactly. The predictable result is that different becomes disqualified, even when the applicant has a valid license abroad, a clean record and a documented history of practice.
A competence-based approach is both stricter and more useful. It starts with good standing in the originating jurisdiction, verified scope of practice and documented work history. It confirms knowledge and skills through exams, background checks or practical assessments, as appropriate. If gaps exist, they are addressed through targeted, time-limited training bridging rather than a full restart of education.
Universal licensing recognition offers a useful model. At its best, ULR does not pretend every credential is identical. It creates a structured pathway to verify competence and quickly move qualified people into work. States can apply that same structure to foreign licenses by building explicit pathways rather than leaving foreign-trained professionals in an ad hoc, case-by-case review.
Utah offers a helpful example. The state has established a centralized, visible route for foreign license recognition within its licensing infrastructure. Applicants and employers can easily understand where to start, what documents are needed and how review will be handled. That transparency reduces uncertainty and makes the system easier to improve over time.
If states want foreign credential recognition to work, they should build around three benchmarks: speed, predictability and competence-based review. Reviews should happen on clear timelines, with published criteria and objective reasons for approval or denial. Recognition should focus on proven ability to practice safely, not rigid comparisons of training formats that differ across countries.
States can also use provisional or supervised practice where safety allows. Conditional practice with clear safeguards can reduce downtime while verification occurs and help employers bring talent into the workforce faster without compromising oversight.
A simple test applies: Does the system convert proven credentials into permission to work in a timely, transparent, competence-focused way? If not, it is not recognition. It is delay with better branding.
Universal licensing recognition began as a domestic mobility reform. With thoughtful design, it can also support a modern approach to foreign credential recognition that keeps standards intact while moving qualified professionals to work. In a global talent market, our licensing systems should be capable of telling real risk from unnecessary bureaucracy.
Brett Bantle is a research specialist at North Dakota State University’s Challey Institute for Global Innovation and Growth.
Governing's opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing's editors or management.
