US immigration authorities are adding children's DNA to a criminal database

U.S. adds over 130,000 children's DNA to criminal database, sparking privacy concerns.

: U.S. immigration authorities have added DNA from over 130,000 minors to a criminal database in less than five years, including children as young as four. Since 2020, the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) has intensified DNA contributions to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) overseen by the FBI. This stems from updated regulations by the Department of Justice removing Homeland Security's exemptions from DNA collection. Criticism comes from legal experts, who argue this policy may permanently retain genetic data without criminal arrest or conviction, thus ethically concerning.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been collecting DNA from migrant children, including some as young as four years old, and submitting it to the FBI’s national criminal database, CODIS. This practice follows a 2020 rule change by the Department of Justice that removed previous exemptions for non-criminal detainees.

Although children under 14 are typically exempt under CBP policy, records show that DNA has been collected from over 133,000 minors between 2020 and 2024. In total, more than 1.5 million DNA profiles have been added since the rule change, reflecting a sharp increase in biometric surveillance.

Officials claim the move is intended to combat human trafficking and fraud. However, civil rights advocates argue that collecting and indefinitely storing children's DNA—especially those never charged with a crime, raises serious privacy and ethical concerns.

Legal experts warn that the use of CODIS for immigration purposes blurs the line between law enforcement and humanitarian policy. Critics say undocumented migrants are being treated like criminal suspects, and the program lacks adequate oversight and transparency.

A pending lawsuit filed by Georgetown Law's Center on Privacy & Technology seeks to uncover how the Department of Homeland Security manages, retains, and shares these DNA samples. The case underscores the broader debate over balancing national security with fundamental rights.

Sources: The Guardian, Wired, Gizmodo, The Independent

LegalCybersecurityPrivacy