DNA surveillance of migrant children in US sparks legal and ethical alarms

Since 2020, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has ramped up its biometric surveillance capabilities by dramatically expanding DNA collection at the border, which more recently has included collecting the DNA of children as young as four years old, despite having assured in 2020 and again in September 2022 that only DNA from persons ages 14 to 79 is being collected.

Originally piloted under the first Trump administration and now continued under Trump’s second term after having been largely put on the back burner during the Biden administration, this genetic data initiative has evolved from a niche enforcement mechanism into a wide-reaching and controversial surveillance program that civil liberties advocates say undermines privacy, violates ethical norms, and weaponizes forensic tools against migrant families.

The dramatic growth in DNA collection is unprecedented. According to recent figures, DNA samples from over 1.5 million individuals have been collected and uploaded to the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) since the program was launched, a 5,000 percent increase over three years. Among these, reports Wired, more than 133,000 are from migrant children and teenagers, many of whom are not suspected of committing any crimes.

According to DHS, CBP does not collect DNA from “aliens lawfully in, or being processed for lawful admission into the United States; Aliens held at a Port of Entry during consideration of admissibility and not subject to further detention or proceedings; Aliens held in connection with maritime interdiction; or when … NCIC indicates CODIS already contains a DNA profile for the individual.

This month, however, Hilton Beckham, CBP assistant commissioner of public affairs, said in a statement that, “In order to secure our borders, CBP is devoting every resource available to identify who is entering our country. We are not letting human smugglers, child sex traffickers, and other criminals enter American communities. Toward this end, CBP collects DNA samples for submission to the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System from persons in CBP custody who are arrested on federal criminal charges, and from aliens detained under CBP’s authority who are subject to fingerprinting and not otherwise exempt from the collection requirement.”

The DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 authorized the collection of DNA samples from individuals arrested, facing charges, or convicted under federal jurisdiction, as well as from non-U.S. persons detained under the authority of the United States. Initially, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including CBP, was exempted from this requirement due to operational and resource constraints.

However, according to Republican lawmakers, the Biden administration failed to abide by the DNA Fingerprint Act, noting last September that, “According to the Office of Special Counsel, for a decade and primarily during the Obama-Biden Administration, the Department of Homeland Security did not follow the law to fully collect DNA samples.”

In March 2020, the Department of Justice issued a final rule eliminating DHS’s discretion to exempt certain detained noncitizens from DNA sample collection. This rule, effective April 8, 2020, mandated that DHS agencies, including CBP, collect DNA samples from individuals in their custody who are subject to fingerprinting, aligning with the broader objectives of the DNA Fingerprint Act.

Following this rule change, CBP initiated a phased implementation of DNA collection, starting with pilot programs in January 2020 and aiming for full operational capacity by December 31, 2020. The collection targeted individuals between the ages of 14 and 79 who were detained under U.S. authority and subject to fingerprinting.

DOJ defends the practice as a necessary tool for law enforcement to identify individuals who may have committed crimes or to prevent future criminal activity. However, critics highlight the indefinite retention of DNA samples and the potential for misuse, emphasizing the need for clear policies and oversight to protect individual rights.

Under Biden, though, the collection program was significantly curtailed. In May 2023, the Government Accountability Office said CBP Office of Field Operations and Border Patrol needed to develop and implement mechanisms to systematically collect data on the reasons officers and agents were not collecting DNA from individuals arrested on federal criminal charges or certain noncitizens detained for immigration violations as the law required.

In January, the program began in earnest once Trump was back in the Oval Office.

To date, CBP has collected DNA samples from upwards of two million individuals, including more than 133,000 minors, some as young as four years old. These samples are submitted to the FBI’s CODIS, a database that primarily is used for criminal investigations. This extensive collection has raised concerns among privacy advocates and civil liberties organizations, who argue that it represents a significant expansion of genetic surveillance and may stigmatize immigrant communities.

What has drawn the most scrutiny though is the collection of DNA from children. While DHS policy ostensibly exempts those under 14 from being swabbed, investigative reports reveal that this exemption is inconsistently applied. In practice, CBP officers appear to retain wide discretion, and children as young as four have had their DNA taken during enforcement actions.

CBP under Trump defends its use of DNA technology as a vital tool to combat human trafficking and prevent fraudulent family claims. In cases where adults claim custody of children, DNA testing – particularly familial DNA matching – is often used to confirm biological relationships. The agency insists that this enhances child protection, ensures the integrity of asylum processes, and assists in criminal investigations of smugglers and traffickers. As part of this, DHS conducted a Privacy Impact Assessment on familial DNA collection in 2021 to justify operational use.

Still, civil rights groups argue that CBP’s actions exceed its mandate and violate the principles of necessity, proportionality, and consent. Critics question the ethics of storing genetic data from minors in criminal databases, especially when such data is uploaded to CODIS. Once in CODIS, the data can be used for a wide range of future law enforcement queries, including cold case matching or criminal investigations unrelated to immigration. The indefinite nature of DNA storage only heightens the concerns over civil liberties and governmental overreach.

Moreover, the voluntariness of familial DNA testing is in question. While DHS claims that adults and children must provide consent before participating, civil rights advocates argue that many families may not fully understand their rights or feel free to decline. The intimidating context of detention, combined with language barriers and a lack of legal counsel, often means that consent is either ill-informed or effectively coerced.

Concerns have also been raised about the lack of transparency and oversight around CBP’s DNA program. Unlike other biometric databases such as fingerprint records or facial recognition logs, the use of DNA involves far deeper privacy implications. DNA contains far more information than a fingerprint, such as ancestry, disease susceptibility, familial connections, and unique genetic traits. The potential for misuse or unintended exposure, especially in the context of politically charged immigration enforcement, is enormous.

Data security is another concern. The transfer and storage of sensitive genetic material involve multiple federal agencies, raising questions about inter-agency data sharing, cybersecurity standards, and the scope of access. There is little public clarity on how long the data is stored, who can access it, whether it can be shared with foreign governments, or what procedures are in place to delete it if an individual is later exonerated or granted asylum.

Legal experts and immigration scholars warn that such practices effectively criminalize immigration. While immigration violations are civil matters – not criminal offenses – the treatment of migrants through forensic DNA profiling shifts the process into the criminal sphere. This approach, they argue, not only erodes the legal distinction between civil and criminal processes, but it also stigmatizes entire communities as suspect based solely on immigration status.

The long-term implications of this policy are far-reaching. Children who have never been charged with a crime could have their DNA permanently stored in a national criminal database. As the practice expands, it risks creating a second-tier biometric surveillance system for non-citizens, especially Latin American migrants, that parallels, but is even more invasive than, existing criminal justice systems. This disproportionate targeting raises questions about discrimination, bias in surveillance, and systemic inequality.

The debate is further complicated by advances in rapid DNA technology which enables near-instantaneous analysis at the border. CBP has already piloted the use of mobile rapid DNA testing kits that allow agents to collect, process, and analyze genetic samples within hours. While touted as a tool for operational efficiency, the speed and scale of implementation often outpace the establishment of legal safeguards.

It is also unclear how this data interacts with other federal surveillance and immigration enforcement databases, such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Enforcement and Removal Operations systems or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service’s identity verification systems. The possibility of cross-referencing DNA profiles with social media data, family histories, and foreign intelligence raises the specter of mass digital profiling that far exceeds the agency’s original immigration mission.

Despite calls from privacy organizations and legal watchdogs, no comprehensive legislative oversight has been instituted to regulate CBP’s DNA practices. Congress has not passed any laws explicitly curbing the collection of DNA from migrant children, nor has it placed limits on how long this information can be stored or how it may be used in other legal contexts. Some members of Congress have demanded more information, but as of mid-2025, no hearings or policy reviews have been scheduled.

As the federal government continues to embrace biometric surveillance technologies under the banner of national security and immigration control, CBP’s DNA program stands at the intersection of civil liberties, digital privacy, and border enforcement. For advocates, the fundamental question remains: should children fleeing violence and instability be subjected to forensic profiling typically reserved for criminal suspects?

In the absence of clearer policy boundaries, ethical safeguards, and judicial oversight, the DNA collection of migrant children risks normalizing a system in which genetic surveillance is embedded into the daily function of immigration enforcement. It also sets a precedent for how biometric data might be collected and used in the future beyond the border, beyond immigration, and beyond the limits of consent.

Article Topics

biometric data  |  biometric identifiers  |  biometrics  |  border security  |  CBP  |  DHS  |  dna  |  ICE  |  Rapid DNA  |  U.S. Government