DHS Biometrics Expansion: DNA, Social Media, and the End of Privacy

Published on November 3, 2025 as an 84-page proposed rule (Document 2025-19747), this regulation would broaden what "biometrics" means in the immigration context — expanding the definition to include DNA, iris, retina, and voice print alongside fingerprints and photographs. ^[7] The public comment period closed on January 2, 2026, drawing more than 6,000 public comments — an extraordinary level of engagement for a rule of this kind. ^[2][7] Per the Federal Register summary, DHS proposes to "require submission of biometrics by any individual, regardless of age, filing or associated with an immigration benefit request." ^[7] The rule would extend collection to petitioners and family members who are themselves U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, not only the immigration benefit applicants. ^[1][7]

Published on December 10, 2025 as 90 FR 57208 (Document 2025-22461), this proposal would revise the Arrival and Departure Record (Form I-94) and the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA), affecting visitors from visa-waiver countries. ^[9] It would decommission the ESTA website in favor of a mobile-only application requiring a live selfie, and would expand the data collected to include social media identifiers from the past five years, phone numbers, a decade of email addresses, and expanded biometrics. ^[4][9] The comment period remains open until February 9, 2026; the notice had drawn more than 91,000 page views on FederalRegister.gov as of August 2026. ^[9]

CBP justified the mobile-only transition by citing security failures: the Traveler Application Security Unit of CBP's National Targeting Center identified over 2,400 poor-quality passport uploads and 8,000 invalid passport photos that bypassed facial comparison screening on the ESTA website. CBP stated it "believes that travelers are aware of this vulnerability and have begun to exploit it by purposely uploading poor quality images to avoid detection." ^[9]

The administration cites several authorities to justify these expansions, though critics — including legal advocacy groups such as the Institute for Justice — argue the agencies are exceeding their Congressional mandate. ^[3]

DHS relies heavily on this statute, which as implemented directed federal agencies to collect DNA from individuals who are arrested or convicted, and from "non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the United States" — defined as people who are neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents. ^[10] A 2020 rule change removed DHS's discretion to exempt certain detained immigrants from that requirement. ^[12] Critics note the 2005 law's authority was built for detention contexts involving noncitizens, not the civil benefit applications — filed in some cases by U.S. citizens on a relative's behalf — that the new proposal would cover. ^[10][1]

This provision gives the President broad authority to suspend entry of any class of aliens deemed detrimental to U.S. interests. The administration invoked it in Executive Order 14161, signed January 20, 2025, directing agencies to identify countries with deficient vetting information for possible entry suspensions. ^[8] It is not the basis for a separate January 2026 action — a pause on immigrant-visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries classified as "high risk for public benefits usage," effective January 21, 2026 — which instead relies on the INA's public-charge inadmissibility ground, not Section 212(f). ^[5]

The regulatory landscape has created a two-tier system: rights that have already been impacted by finalized rules, and rights that remain at risk pending the outcome of the proposed rulemaking process.

The likelihood of these policies becoming permanent depends on their survival in federal court. The biometrics rule drew more than 6,000 public comments before its January 2, 2026 deadline — a volume reflecting opposition from privacy and civil-liberties groups, including the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Institute for Justice. ^[2][6][3][7] The ESTA revision, which had drawn more than 91,000 page views on FederalRegister.gov as of August 2026, also signals substantial public attention. ^[9]

The biometrics expansion has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum because it touches on fundamental questions about the relationship between the individual and the state:

DNA is uniquely sensitive because, unlike a fingerprint, it carries deeply personal information about health, disease predispositions, and family relationships that a person cannot change and that also implicates relatives who never consented to testing. ^[12]

Critics point to a pattern in which DNA-collection authority has widened well beyond its original scope: the 2005 statute DHS invokes was built for detained noncitizens, yet the current proposal would extend collection to civil benefit applicants including U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents filing on a relative's behalf. ^[10][1]

The social media mandate creates incentives for self-censorship. Researchers tracking this kind of vetting have found that vague, unpredictable standards for what counts as disqualifying online activity lead travelers and applicants to over-comply — scrubbing accounts or avoiding legitimate political speech — even absent any specific threat of punishment. ^[11]