In a revelation that has sparked intense debate among privacy advocates and legal experts, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been quietly amassing DNA samples from U.S. citizens encountered at the border, integrating them into a federal criminal database. This practice, which extends beyond noncitizens to include Americans, raises profound questions about government surveillance and civil liberties in an era of advanced biometric technologies.

According to newly released data analyzed by privacy researchers, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a DHS agency, collected DNA from nearly 2,000 U.S. citizens between 2020 and 2024. These samples were then funneled into the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), a database primarily used for criminal investigations. The individuals affected include teenagers as young as 14, highlighting the broad scope of this program that critics argue lacks sufficient oversight and legal safeguards.

Expanding Reach of Biometric Surveillance

The origins of this DNA collection trace back to a 2020 regulation that mandated genetic sampling from almost all individuals detained by immigration authorities, regardless of citizenship status. While the policy was ostensibly aimed at noncitizens, internal documents reveal that U.S. citizens have inadvertently or deliberately been swept into the net. As reported in a detailed investigation by Wired, this has resulted in a significant expansion of what was already a massive surveillance effort, with over 1.5 million profiles added to CODIS since the program’s inception.

Privacy experts contend that storing citizens’ DNA in a crime-focused database treats innocent people as perpetual suspects. The Georgetown Law’s Center on Privacy & Technology, which obtained the data through Freedom of Information Act requests, emphasized in their analysis that many of these collections occurred without probable cause or judicial oversight, potentially violating Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.

Legal and Ethical Implications

Senator Ron Wyden has been vocal in demanding accountability, pressing DHS for answers on the shadowy aspects of this program. His office’s inquiries, as covered by various outlets, underscore concerns that the data could be used for purposes beyond border security, such as familial DNA searches that implicate relatives in unrelated investigations. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has echoed these sentiments, warning that such practices erode trust in government institutions and disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, including minors and families at the border.

Defenders of the program argue it enhances national security by aiding in the identification of criminals and missing persons. However, the inclusion of U.S. citizens complicates this narrative, as federal law typically restricts DNA collection from Americans to those arrested for serious crimes. The discrepancy has led to lawsuits, with groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation challenging the program’s constitutionality and calling for greater transparency.

Oversight Gaps and Future Reforms

Recent lawsuits, including one filed by immigration advocates against DHS for withholding program details, have brought additional scrutiny. As detailed in reports from Newsweek, plaintiffs argue that the 5,000% increase in DNA collections since 2020 represents a “massive surveillance dragnet” that demands public disclosure. These legal battles are ongoing, with potential implications for how biometric data is handled across federal agencies.

Industry insiders in the tech and security sectors are watching closely, noting that advancements in DNA sequencing technology make such databases increasingly powerful—and risky. Without robust reforms, experts fear this could set a precedent for broader genetic surveillance, blurring the lines between immigration enforcement and domestic policing. As debates intensify, the balance between security needs and individual rights remains precarious, with calls for congressional intervention growing louder to address these emerging challenges in biometric governance.