EU divisions persist over US border biometric data framework

European Union governments remain divided over a proposed agreement that would allow U.S. authorities to query national databases containing fingerprints and other personal information when screening travelers and people encountered during border and immigration proceedings.

EU ambassadors were due to consider whether the latest compromise provides a sufficient basis for negotiations to move forward.

Some governments still have “substantial concerns” about the agreement’s scope, its information sharing model, and safeguards covering further processing, onward transfers, retention periods, and sensitive personal data, according to an internal Council document reviewed by Euractiv. The current negotiating text has not been made public.

The dispute arises from a requirement introduced by the Biden administration in February 2022, when the U.S. told countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program that they would have to establish an Enhanced Border Security Partnership (EBSP) with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The Trump administration has retained and is now pressing ahead with that requirement.

The current timetable calls for agreements to be concluded by December 31, after which DHS is expected to assess countries’ compliance as part of their continued participation in the program.

The U.S. expects EBSP agreements to be concluded by December 31, after which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will assess countries’ compliance as part of their continued participation in the program.

Except for Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Romania, citizens of EU countries currently participate in the Visa Waiver Program. Washington’s demand therefore affects most of the EU bloc and gives the negotiations an immediate consequence for transatlantic travel.

The Council of the European Union, which represents the governments of the EU’s member states, authorized the European Commission in December 2025 to negotiate a framework governing reciprocal exchanges for security screening and identity verification connected to border procedures and visa applications.

The framework would establish common EU rules, but individual member states would decide which national databases and categories of information to include in subsequent bilateral arrangements with the U.S.

A completed agreement would require the Council’s approval and the consent of the European Parliament.

The U.S. request extends beyond an occasional law enforcement query involving a known suspect.

A European Parliamentary Research Service briefing, citing a 2024 DHS privacy assessment, said the EBSP would allow the department to routinely screen against partner country biometric databases when assessing travelers, asylum applicants, and people encountered during U.S. border screening and immigration procedures.

The breadth of that population helps explain why the talks have become a major data protection issue. The European Data Protection Supervisor said the framework could become the first EU agreement with a non-EU country involving large-scale sharing of personal and biometric data for border and immigration control.

The supervisor largely supported establishing common EU safeguards rather than leaving each country to negotiate alone but called for the agreement’s personal and material scope to be defined narrowly and its processing limited to what is necessary and proportionate.

One of the most consequential disagreements concerns automated decision-making.

A draft reviewed by Euractiv would not impose an absolute prohibition on decisions made solely through automated processing. According to the publication, the text says decisions producing significant adverse effects on individuals should not be based solely on automated processes unless that use is authorized by the domestic law of the U.S. or the participating European country.

When national law permits such processing, the draft would require safeguards that include an individual’s ability to seek human intervention.

The language therefore leaves open the possibility that an automated decision could be made before a person reviews it, depending on how the provision is implemented.

The reported text does not establish what would constitute a significant adverse effect, how quickly human intervention would be available or whether review would have to occur before an adverse action took effect.

The provision refers to automated processing and does not establish that AI must be used. It nevertheless leaves room for algorithms to play a decisive role in border or immigration screening where domestic law authorizes that approach.

The reported language is less categorical than the European Commission’s original July 2025 recommendation. The Commission proposed that the agreement contain safeguards for automated processing and profiling and prohibit decisions based solely on automated processing without human involvement.

That proposal represented the Commission’s recommended starting position, however, rather than the complete mandate ultimately adopted by the Council. The Council’s full negotiating directives have not been officially published.

Sensitive information presents another unresolved problem. The Commission’s proposal contemplated possible transfers, in individual cases, of information revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious beliefs, trade union membership, genetic information, health, sexual life, or sexual orientation.

It proposed allowing those transfers only when strictly necessary and proportionate for preventing or combating criminal and terrorist offenses and when appropriate safeguards were in place.

The European Data Protection Supervisor warned that supplementary information returned after a database match should be defined exhaustively and as narrowly as possible.

DHS has indicated that after a biometric match it may seek biographical information, travel document and nationality information, known convictions and arrests for serious crimes, and the person’s immigration status in the country holding the record.

The supervisor noted that national police files may contain arrest records or criminal intelligence that has never been reviewed by a court and may concern a potential suspect whose case was never pursued.

The EDPS also urged negotiators to ensure judicial redress in the U.S. regardless of a person’s citizenship. It criticized the Commission for proceeding without an in-depth impact assessment, which it said was justified by the expected effect on the fundamental rights of many people.

The latest diplomatic row indicates that revisions have not resolved concerns about what happens after European information reaches the U.S.

The outstanding questions include how long an agency may retain the data, when it may use the information for another purpose, and under what conditions it may share the records with another authority.

Euractiv reported that proposed protections governing further processing and onward transfers have not persuaded all governments that the safeguards are sufficient.

The U.S. negotiations are separate from another Commission initiative to establish common rules for automated biometric exchanges with selected non-EU law enforcement partners.

The Commission opened a public feedback period in June on that proposal, often described as Prüm international, and plans to present legislation during the fourth quarter of 2026.

The initiative is aimed principally at police cooperation against serious and organized crime, while the EBSP is tied to U.S. border and immigration screening and continued visa-free travel.

No final EU-U.S. agreement has been concluded. The central disagreement is no longer simply whether a fingerprint may be compared with a European record, but rather what information may follow a match, how automated systems may influence decisions, how long the U.S. may retain the data, and whether European protections can remain enforceable after the information crosses the Atlantic.

Article Topics

biometrics  |  cross-border data sharing  |  Enhanced Border Security Partnership (EBSP)  |  EU  |  Europe  |  U.S. Government  |  United States