US Proposes Mandatory DNA and Biometrics for Immigration Applicants

(UNITED STATES) The Department of Homeland Security on November 3, 2025 proposed a sweeping rule to require mandatory DNA and expanded biometric data collection from all immigration applicants, including children and family sponsors, a major shift that would make genetic sampling a routine step across the U.S. immigration system. The measure, published in the Federal Register, launches a public comment window of 60 days and would apply regardless of age or application type, covering visa seekers, green card candidates, asylum applicants, U.S. citizen sponsors, and infants encountered at the border.

DHS said the change is intended to tighten identity checks, curb trafficking, and deter fraud by broadening what data the government can collect and retain from people moving through immigration channels. In a formal statement accompanying the proposal, DHS stated:

“Using biometrics for identity verification and management will assist DHS’s efforts to combat trafficking, confirm the results of biographical criminal history checks, and deter fraud.”
The proposal is part of a broader Trump administration effort to intensify screening and expand government databases that track foreign nationals as they apply for benefits and move within the immigration system.

Under the plan, government officers could collect DNA samples alongside a much wider set of identifiers than are typically gathered today. The rule lists facial imagery, iris and retina scans, fingerprints and palm prints, voice prints, and handwritten signatures as standard forms of biometric data collection to be captured from immigration applicants and related participants. In practical terms, that could mean cheek swabs for DNA, high-resolution facial photos, and scans of eyes and hands for virtually everyone interacting with the immigration process, not only those seeking admission but also U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents petitioning for relatives under laws like the Adam Walsh Act and the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act.

The scope would be expansive by design. DHS said there would be no age exemptions, meaning children and infants could be fingerprinted and scanned to verify identities and, officials say, to help detect false family claims and trafficking. The proposal also asserts new authority to keep running checks after the first screening, allowing continuous vetting for migrants, sponsors, and family members over time. It would authorize officers to collect biometrics not only during filings and interviews but also when a noncitizen is detained or arrested by immigration authorities, broadening when and where samples could be taken.

The plan marks a clear break from current practices, where DNA is generally used only to confirm a biological relationship in family-based cases when documents are missing or in dispute, or when Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) collect DNA from certain non-U.S. citizens in custody under law enforcement programs. By shifting DNA sampling into routine immigration processing, DHS is moving genetic testing from a targeted, case-by-case tool to a standard requirement. In plain terms, mandatory DNA becomes one element of a much larger biometric data collection protocol that would extend across the immigration system, affecting first-time applicants and longtime residents tied to new filings.

Privacy advocates and civil liberties groups reacted sharply to the breadth of the proposal, warning about the long-term reach of government genetic databases and the impact on people who are not suspected of crimes. Richard T. Herman, Esq., an immigration attorney, said:

“Collecting DNA from immigrants isn’t just about security — it’s about control. Once your genetic data is in a federal database, you can never truly delete it.”
That concern is echoed by researchers and rights groups that have tracked the growth of biometric repositories across agencies and jurisdictions. Stevie Glaberson, a researcher and advocate, said:
“US border authorities’ widespread collection of DNA raises serious constitutional concerns and represents an abuse of power that threatens civil rights.”

The department’s proposal says DNA could be used for identity verification, to confirm biological relationships in family cases, and in some situations as evidence of biological sex. Combined with face, iris, fingerprint, and voice sampling, the system would allow DHS and partner agencies to cross-check identities at multiple points and maintain records for future screenings. DHS says that is necessary to “confirm the results of biographical criminal history checks” and to reduce fraud risk, especially in high-volume parts of the system like asylum, humanitarian parole, and family sponsorships where documentary evidence can be hard to verify quickly.

A core part of the rule addresses what happens after collection. DHS says that DNA profiles and other biometrics could be stored indefinitely and shared with federal, state, local, and some foreign government agencies. That prospect of perpetual retention and broad sharing is at the heart of many objections. Critics, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have labeled the approach “genetic surveillance” and argued that handing over a DNA sample is not like submitting a photograph or a fingerprint; it can reveal deeply personal information and create new risks if databases are breached or repurposed. The department’s filing acknowledges the sensitivity of the data but argues the benefits to identity management and national security justify the collection and retention policies described in the rule.

Legal experts say the measure will likely face court challenges if finalized, in part because immigration detention is a civil process rather than a criminal one. In Maryland v. King (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld cheek swabs from criminal arrestees as a “reasonable” search under the Fourth Amendment. Applying that logic to civil immigration processing—especially when the rule would sweep in people who are neither arrested nor suspected of crimes, such as U.S. citizen sponsors—raises unresolved questions that could end up before the Supreme Court. The proposal also reverses Obama-era policies that previously deemed mass DNA collection from immigration detainees unfeasible, a policy shift that opponents argue underscores the novelty—and the risks—of routine mandatory DNA sampling in civil contexts.

Beyond the constitutional debate, attorneys and community groups say the move will reach far into daily life for families with immigration cases. A U.S. citizen petitioning for a spouse or parent would need to submit biometrics for criminal history checks; a lawful permanent resident sponsoring a child could face continuing checks over time; and asylum seekers, already providing fingerprints and photos, would add DNA to the list. Because there are no age limits, parents arriving with infants could see their babies fingerprinted and scanned at the border or during processing. For many, the new requirements would mean more appointments, longer timelines, and the knowledge that intimate personal data—right down to genetic code—will be stored and potentially shared well beyond the initial application.

The rule’s reach also extends into enforcement settings, allowing DHS officers to collect biometrics when a noncitizen is detained or arrested by immigration officials. That provision could draw in people who were not planning to file any applications at that moment but are nonetheless swept into the system through an arrest. The department frames this as a way to resolve identity questions quickly and link records across cases, but defense lawyers say it could blur the line between civil immigration processes and criminal law enforcement, especially if data moves freely between databases used by DHS, the FBI, and state systems.

Officials argue the larger biometric net will improve accuracy and speed in decision-making as data sources multiply. In recent years, CBP and ICE have expanded DNA collection for some non-U.S. citizens in custody, and DHS has broadened facial recognition pilots at ports of entry and airports. By codifying a unified approach that includes DNA for nearly everyone in the stream of immigration applicants, the department aims to standardize practices across components and reduce gaps that can be exploited by fraudsters or traffickers. DHS says continuous vetting will help it respond to new information that arises after an initial screening, such as a later criminal arrest or identification of a fraudulent identity document.

Attorneys and advocates push back that the price of that certainty is too high, especially when it falls on people seeking legal pathways. They point to the risk of errors in large systems, the difficulty of correcting records once data spreads across agencies, and the chilling effect on U.S. citizens who might delay or avoid sponsoring relatives rather than submit a DNA sample. The ability to share data with “some foreign government agencies” adds to those worries in cases involving dissidents or refugees who fear surveillance by their home countries. The department’s filing does not set a fixed end date for data retention, and it leaves room for evolving technologies, which means new types of biometrics could be added later without re-opening core policy questions.

Much of the practical impact would be felt at the application counters and intake centers where people file everyday petitions. A green card applicant submitting medicals and police certificates would now expect to provide a DNA sample; a student renewing status could be called back for a fresh face and iris scan; a family bringing an adopted child might face extra steps to verify relationships if the rule is read strictly. For agencies, standardizing procedures across biometrics could streamline checks and make it easier to confirm identities when documents are inconsistent or names transliterated differently. For applicants, the process would be more intrusive and could require multiple visits as systems roll out and recurring checks begin.

The public comment period is central to what happens next. DHS says it welcomes feedback through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, where members of the public, advocacy groups, and state and local agencies can submit views on the costs, privacy safeguards, age policies, and scope of data sharing. After the 60 days close, the department can finalize the rule, revise it based on comments, or withdraw it. If the final version survives expected lawsuits, DHS would publish implementation guidance that sets out timelines, procedures for sampling, data security protocols, and how continuous vetting would operate for people already in the United States.

Supporters of tighter screening are likely to applaud a uniform rule that treats DNA as a standard identity tool and sets common expectations for everyone who touches the system. Opponents will emphasize that immigration processing is civil, not criminal, and argue that mass genetic databases cross a line that courts have not yet tested head-on. Civilians who have never been arrested—or who are U.S. citizens sponsoring relatives—could find themselves folded into a permanent government repository with limited paths to removal. As the filing acknowledges, DHS intends to keep options open for indefinite retention and multi-agency sharing, which will place the department’s security rationale squarely against privacy and civil liberties concerns in the debates to come.

For now, the most immediate change is clarity about the proposal’s breadth. The plan reaches every corner of the system: asylum seekers, refugees, and parolees; spouses, parents, and children in family cases; students and workers seeking extensions; and U.S. citizens and permanent residents who sign on as sponsors. It sets no age floor and envisions multiple points of capture, from the border to service centers to detention settings. It turns what was once targeted and occasional into something routine and universal, a deliberate redesign aimed at tightening identity control through mandatory DNA and a wide suite of biometrics.

As the comment period unfolds, DHS will face questions about what safeguards accompany that expansion—how genetic data will be secured, what redress exists for errors, and how long profiles remain active when cases close. The answers will decide how a powerful identity system is balanced with the privacy of millions of people whose lives intersect with U.S. immigration law, from infants in strollers at ports of entry to retirees sponsoring adult children. The rule’s future will also test how far the government can extend biometric data collection in a civil process before courts draw a constitutional boundary—an issue that, as several legal scholars note, could ultimately be decided by the nation’s highest court.