The Quiet Expansion: How DHS Is Using Immigration Powers to Collect Americans' DNA
Let's be honest—most of us don't read the Federal Register. It's dense, legalistic, and frankly, pretty boring. But buried in that bureaucratic language are policy changes that could fundamentally reshape our relationship with the government. Right now, there's a proposal that should make every privacy-conscious American sit up and pay attention.
The Department of Homeland Security wants to expand biometric collection in ways that would have seemed like science fiction just a decade ago. And they're doing it under the banner of immigration enforcement—a justification that's increasingly being used to justify surveillance of citizens too. I've been tracking government surveillance programs for years, and this represents one of the most significant expansions I've seen.
What's particularly concerning isn't just what they want to collect (though that's troubling enough). It's how they're framing it. By tying this expansion to immigration powers, DHS is creating a surveillance architecture that could eventually touch every American. And once that genetic data is in government hands, there's no telling how it might be used in the future.
Understanding the Proposed Rule: What DHS Actually Wants
First, let's break down what's actually in that Federal Register notice. The proposed rule, published in November 2025, would expand U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' authority to collect biometrics. On its face, it's about immigration processing. But the devil—as always—is in the details.
The rule would authorize collection from "any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or individual filing or associated with an immigration benefit or request." That language is deliberately broad. It could include U.S. citizens sponsoring family members, employers filing for work visas, or anyone "associated with" an immigration matter. In practice, this creates a massive net.
But here's what really caught my attention: the definition of biometrics. The proposal explicitly mentions DNA, iris scans, voice prints, and facial recognition. We're not just talking fingerprints anymore. We're talking about the most intimate, immutable identifiers humans possess—our genetic code.
DHS claims this is about "identity verification" and "national security." And sure, those are legitimate concerns. But when you start collecting DNA from people who aren't suspected of any crime, who are simply going through routine immigration processes, you're crossing a line. I've seen how mission creep works in government agencies. What starts as a limited program often expands far beyond its original scope.
The Immigration Enforcement Trojan Horse
Here's where things get really interesting—and concerning. DHS is using its immigration enforcement authority as justification for this expansion. But immigration law has increasingly become a backdoor for broader surveillance powers.
Think about it this way: immigration touches millions of Americans every year. U.S. citizens marry foreign nationals. Companies hire international talent. Families sponsor relatives. Each of these interactions creates an "immigration benefit or request" that could trigger biometric collection under the proposed rule.
What we're seeing is the normalization of DNA collection through administrative processes. It's not happening through criminal law (where there are more constitutional protections). It's happening through immigration procedures where the rules are different. And once the infrastructure is in place, expanding it becomes much easier.
I've spoken with immigration attorneys who are deeply worried about this. One told me, "We're creating a system where genetic data becomes just another form to fill out. But DNA isn't like a Social Security number. It reveals health information, family relationships, predispositions. It's fundamentally different."
The Technical Reality: What DNA Collection Actually Means
Let's talk about what DNA collection actually involves, because there's a lot of misunderstanding here. When people hear "DNA collection," they might imagine a quick cheek swab—no big deal, right? But the implications are enormous.
Your DNA contains information about your health risks, ancestry, and family relationships. It's not just an identifier; it's a biological blueprint. And once the government has it, they have it forever. Unlike a password you can change or a phone number you can update, your DNA is permanent.
The proposed rule mentions using DNA for "relationship verification." That sounds reasonable when you're talking about proving a parent-child relationship. But the technology for analyzing DNA has advanced dramatically. Today's analysis can reveal information far beyond simple parentage.
And here's something most people don't realize: when you give your DNA for one purpose, there's often no legal barrier to using it for others. The Fourth Amendment provides some protection, but administrative searches have different standards. Once your genetic profile is in a government database, it could potentially be accessed for criminal investigations, national security purposes, or even shared with other agencies.
Privacy Implications Beyond the Individual
This isn't just about individual privacy—though that's important enough. It's about what happens when you start building massive genetic databases. The privacy implications extend to families, communities, and potentially entire ethnic groups.
DNA reveals family relationships. If the government collects DNA from one family member, they gain information about relatives who never consented to provide samples. This is called "genetic surveillance by association," and it's a growing concern among privacy advocates.
There's also the risk of function creep. History shows us that surveillance tools created for one purpose often get used for others. The Social Security number was originally for retirement benefits. License plate readers were for stolen vehicles. DNA databases created for immigration verification could easily become tools for much broader surveillance.
I'm particularly concerned about how this data might be used with other technologies. Combine genetic information with facial recognition, location data from phones, and social media monitoring, and you've got a surveillance system of unprecedented power. And because immigration processes disproportionately affect certain communities, the impact won't be evenly distributed.
The Legal Landscape: What Rights Do You Actually Have?
This is where things get legally complicated—and where most people's assumptions about their rights might be wrong. Many Americans assume they have strong constitutional protections against this kind of data collection. The reality is more nuanced.
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. But what's "reasonable" in an administrative context differs from criminal investigations. Courts have generally given government agencies more leeway when collecting data for regulatory purposes.
There's also the question of consent. In immigration processes, is consent truly voluntary when refusing could mean denial of a visa or green card? That's a power imbalance that troubles many legal experts. When the choice is between providing your DNA and being separated from family members, how free is that choice really?
Privacy laws in the U.S. are patchwork at best. We don't have comprehensive genetic privacy legislation like some other countries. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) provides some protection against health insurance and employment discrimination, but it doesn't cover government collection or many other uses.
Practical Steps: What You Can Do Right Now
Okay, so this all sounds pretty bleak. But there are things you can do—both to protect yourself and to push back against this expansion of surveillance. First, understand that you're not powerless.
If you're involved in an immigration process, ask questions. Find out exactly what biometrics are being collected and why. Request information about data retention policies—how long will your DNA be kept? Who will have access to it? These are reasonable questions, and you have a right to ask them.
Consider submitting a public comment on the proposed rule. The Federal Register notice includes instructions for commenting. This isn't just symbolic—regulatory agencies are required to consider and respond to substantive comments. Explain why you're concerned, how this might affect you or your community, and what alternatives might exist.
Support organizations that are fighting this expansion. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, ACLU, and other privacy groups are actively working on this issue. They need resources and public support to mount legal challenges and raise awareness.
And this might sound basic, but educate others. Most people have no idea this is happening. Share information with friends, family, and community groups. The more people who understand what's at stake, the harder it becomes for these expansions to happen quietly.
Common Questions and Misconceptions
"If you have nothing to hide, why worry?"
This is the most common—and most flawed—argument against privacy concerns. Privacy isn't about hiding wrongdoing. It's about maintaining autonomy and preventing power imbalances. Even if you trust the current administration, you have no guarantee about future uses of your data. Genetic information reveals things you might not even know about yourself yet.
"Isn't this just for immigrants?"
No, that's the point. The proposed rule explicitly includes U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who are "associated with" immigration processes. That could be you sponsoring a spouse, hiring an employee, or countless other scenarios. The line between "immigrant" and "citizen" in these processes is blurrier than people realize.
"Can't they already get DNA from other sources?"
Yes, law enforcement can obtain DNA in criminal investigations with proper procedures. But there's a huge difference between collecting DNA from someone suspected of a violent crime and collecting it from someone applying for a work visa. The standards, oversight, and purposes are completely different.
"What about DNA testing services like 23andMe?"
Commercial DNA services have their own privacy issues, but there's a crucial difference: you choose to use them. With government collection, the choice may be coerced by immigration consequences. Also, commercial services are subject to different regulations and (theoretically) can't share data without consent in the same way government agencies can.
Looking Ahead: The Future of Genetic Privacy
Where does this leave us as we move further into 2026? The proposed rule is just one piece of a larger trend toward biometric surveillance. We're seeing similar expansions in other countries and in private sector applications.
The technology isn't going away. If anything, it will become cheaper, faster, and more powerful. The question isn't whether we'll have these capabilities—it's what rules will govern their use. Will we have strong privacy protections, transparency requirements, and meaningful oversight? Or will genetic surveillance become just another routine part of interacting with the government?
What gives me hope is that people are starting to pay attention. The Reddit discussion that prompted this article shows that concerned citizens are digging into these proposals, asking tough questions, and sharing information. That's how change happens—not through passive acceptance, but through informed engagement.
The comment period for this rule is still open as of early 2026. There's time to make your voice heard. There's time to contact your representatives. There's time to support legal challenges. But that time isn't unlimited.
Genetic privacy is one of those issues that seems abstract until it affects you personally. By then, it's often too late. The database is built. The precedent is set. The infrastructure is in place. That's why we need to have these conversations now, before the collection becomes routine and resistance seems futile.
Your DNA isn't just data. It's not just another form of identification. It's the biological essence of who you are and who your family is. Once you give that to the government, you can't take it back. So before you—or anyone you know—finds themselves facing that choice, let's make sure we've asked all the right questions and fought for all the necessary protections.
The future of privacy isn't just about what happens in courtrooms or legislative chambers. It's about what happens when ordinary people decide something matters enough to pay attention, to speak up, to push back. And right now, with the government proposing to collect our most intimate biological data under the guise of immigration enforcement, seems like a pretty good time to start.
