Uncle Sam wants to scan your iris and collect your DNA, citizen or not
Summary
The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), via US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), has proposed a rule to dramatically expand biometric collection associated with immigration benefit requests. The proposal would make biometric submission mandatory for a far wider set of people tied to applications — including petitioners, sponsors, dependants and some US citizens — and broaden the legal definition of “biometrics” to cover anatomical, physiological, molecular and behavioural characteristics. New data types explicitly mentioned include ocular imagery (iris), voice prints and DNA (raw results or test data).
Key Points
- DHS proposes to require biometrics from virtually anyone linked to an immigration benefit request: applicants, petitioners, sponsors, supporters, derivatives, dependants and other associated individuals, including US citizens, lawful permanent residents and nationals, unless exempted.
- The rule would redefine “biometrics” to include measurable biological or behavioural characteristics, granting DHS flexibility to adopt new technologies as they emerge.
- Specific new biometric modalities named in the proposal: ocular imagery (eyes/iris), voice prints and DNA (raw samples or test results, including partial profiles).
- DHS states uses will include identity enrolment/verification, producing secure identity documents, national security and criminal-history checks, and proving familial relationships or biological sex for benefit eligibility.
- Public reaction so far is largely negative; commentators cite overreach, surveillance risks and constitutional concerns. DHS is taking comments until 2 January 2026.
Content summary
The proposed USCIS rule shifts biometric collection from a limited, case-specific tool to a potentially universal requirement tied to immigration paperwork. It expands who must provide biometrics to include many people connected to an application, regardless of age, and could reach US citizens when they submit family-based visa petitions or are otherwise associated with a benefit request.
The proposal also rewrites the definition of biometrics to “measurable biological (anatomical, physiological or molecular structure) or behavioural characteristics,” explicitly allowing DHS to require or accept DNA and voice records in addition to fingerprints, photos and signatures. DHS says DNA could be used to confirm family relationships or biological sex where relevant to benefits.
Reporters requested clarification from DHS about why US citizens linked to immigrant cases would be swept in; DHS provided only a standard statement and did not answer targeted questions. The public docket is filled with critical comments, comparing the plan to intrusive surveillance practices and raising concerns about misidentification, bias, spoofing (eg, AI voice cloning) and the retention of highly sensitive molecular data.
Context and Relevance
This proposal arrives amid broader global moves to expand biometric border and identity systems and growing debate over the technology’s limits and harms. Facial-recognition systems have well-documented bias and error rates, voice biometrics are increasingly spoofable by AI, and DNA data carries unique privacy and misuse risks. For anyone working in immigration law, privacy, security policy or civil liberties advocacy, this rule could materially change what data the government holds and how it can be used.
Crunching broader trends: governments are pushing to incorporate more invasive identifiers into administrative processes; at the same time, technological advances and AI make some biometrics easier to collect and easier to fake, heightening both operational and ethical issues.
Why should I read this?
Quick and dirty: if you or someone you help deals with immigration forms, this could suddenly mean giving up your iris scan, voice sample or even DNA. It’s not just about immigrants — the rule would pull in linked US citizens too. Read this so you know how your data might be caught up in a much bigger surveillance net and what the comment deadline is if you want to push back.
Author style
Punchy: the piece flags a significant expansion of state biometric power and flags immediate civil-liberty, accuracy and misuse concerns. If the rule goes through it will alter the data landscape for immigration and associated citizens — worth digging into the detail and the public response.