According to TheRegister.com, the Department of Homeland Security just proposed a sweeping expansion of biometric data collection that would affect virtually anyone connected to immigration cases. The rule, published on November 3, 2025, would require biometric submissions from “any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, supporter, derivative, dependent, beneficiary, or individual filing or associated with a benefit request” – including US citizens and lawful permanent residents. DHS wants authority to collect DNA, voice prints, ocular imagery, and other emerging biometric technologies. The agency also seeks to collect biometrics from “any alien apprehended, arrested or encountered by DHS.” Public comments are being accepted until January 2, 2026, and the response so far has been overwhelmingly negative.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
Wait, They Want Citizens’ Biometrics Too?
Here’s what really stands out about this proposal. It’s not just targeting immigrants anymore. DHS explicitly states that US citizens would be required to submit biometric data “when they submit a family-based visa petition.” So if you’re an American citizen trying to sponsor a family member’s immigration, suddenly you’re in the biometric database too. That’s a significant expansion of who the government considers fair game for this level of data collection.
And they’re not being subtle about it. The language covers practically everyone “associated with” an immigration case. Think about that for a second. How broadly could that be interpreted? We’re talking about a potential scenario where helping a friend with paperwork could land your DNA in a government database.
DNA Collection Raises Serious Questions
The rule proposes giving DHS “express authority to require, request, or accept raw DNA or DNA test results.” They mention using it to verify biological relationships or even “biological sex” when relevant to benefit eligibility. But here’s the thing – once they have your DNA, what else could it be used for? The proposal mentions keeping “partial profiles” too, which sounds like they’re planning to build out a genetic database piece by piece.
DNA isn’t like a fingerprint that just identifies you. It contains incredibly sensitive information about your health, ancestry, and family connections. Are we really comfortable with immigration authorities having access to that level of personal data? And what safeguards would prevent mission creep down the line?
<h2 id="technology-expansion-risks”>New Tech Means New Risks
DHS isn’t just sticking with fingerprints and photos. They’re explicitly calling out voice prints, ocular imagery, and other “emerging” biometric technologies. Voice recognition technology is particularly concerning because it’s becoming increasingly easy to spoof with AI. We’ve already seen deepfake audio used in scams – how reliable will voice prints be for serious identity verification?
The proposal also redefines biometrics as “measurable biological or behavioral characteristics,” which gives them incredibly broad authority to collect whatever new types of data become technologically possible. Basically, as new surveillance tech develops, DHS automatically gets to use it without coming back for additional authorization.
Public Isn’t Buying It
If you check the public comments so far, the response has been overwhelmingly negative. People are calling it government overreach, comparing it to surveillance states, and pointing to Constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure. The full rule text shows just how comprehensive this expansion would be.
What’s telling is that when TheRegister asked DHS specific questions about why citizens need to be included, the agency didn’t provide answers. They just sent the same generic statement they used for a different biometric proposal. That lack of transparency doesn’t inspire confidence.
Organizations like the National Immigration Law Center have long raised concerns about how biometric data collection disproportionately affects immigrant communities. Now that concern extends to citizens caught in the same net. The comment period runs until January 2nd – we’ll see if DHS actually listens to the criticism or pushes forward regardless.
