Bioethics Forum Essay

Collecting Migrant Children’s DNA: A Troubling, but Predictable, Trend in the U.S.

Recent reports reveal that the U.S. government is systematically collecting DNA from migrant children, some as young as 4 years old, and storing it (perhaps indefinitely) in the FBI’s national criminal database. Though the details and scope of the program are deeply troubling, they are, unfortunately, not surprising.

The practice represents yet another development in the decades-long expansion of  the use of genetic information in law enforcement since its first use in a criminal investigation in the mid-1980s. DNA collection was originally restricted to serious offenders, then it became routine for people who were arrested or detained because they were suspected of crimes, and now it includes populations such as migrant children who have not even been suspected of crimes.

DNA has proven invaluable in solving crimes, bringing countless offenders to justice and closure to victims’ families. Officials have defended DNA testing of people crossing the border as a vital tool for verifying migrants’ identities and protecting children by combating human trafficking, as well as arguing that DNA collection helps secure the border by screening for criminals.

But the routine collection of DNA from migrant children for immigration enforcement raises significant legal and ethical concerns. Unlike fingerprints or photos, DNA carries deeply personal information about our health, disease predispositions, and intimate family relationships—data far beyond basic identity. This information, particularly if misused, could have potential long-term implications not just these children, but for their entire extended families.

It is important to note that this is not a new or partisan issue. For decades, administrations of both parties and lawmakers at the state and federal levels have quietly and consistently facilitated the expanded collection and use of DNA by law enforcement. The current border collection policy stems from a 2020 Trump-era change in how the Department of Justice interpreted the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005—a law originally intended to authorize DNA collection from individuals arrested for serious crimes.

Under the reinterpretation, immigration authorities, particularly Customs and Border Protection, began routinely collecting DNA from migrants in custody, regardless of age, criminal history, or suspicion of criminal wrongdoing. The policy appears poised for further expansion during the current Trump administration, which is seeking a $25 million  private contract to increase testing.

More than 100,000 children and teens detained at the border, including those seeking asylum, have been subjected to DNA collection in the form of cheek swabs. The results are uploaded to the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), a national criminal DNA database originally built to track people convicted of serious offenses like violent crimes and sex offenses. Expanding it to store the DNA of migrant children fundamentally blurs the line between civil immigration enforcement and criminal law.

Legally, this widespread collection of DNA from migrant children represents a departure from established norms. In Maryland v. King (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the collection of DNA from individuals arrested for serious criminal offenses, likening it to the routine procedure of collecting fingerprints. The Court’s reasoning hinged on the context of criminal arrest and the minimal physical intrusion of a cheek swab. However, this logic should not extend to immigration detainees, especially minors.

Children apprehended at the border are not suspects in criminal investigations. They are not charged with crimes, nor do they face judicial proceedings in criminal court. Collecting DNA from children in civil immigration custody—without a warrant, probably cause, or individualized suspicion—raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns and deviates from the rationale articulated in King. Courts have long recognized that children enjoy special constitutional protections, especially where state power intersects with privacy and bodily autonomy.

Ethically, the implications are equally troubling. Although CODIS profiles generally include a limited number of DNA segments used for identification, the government retains the original DNA sample. This means a child’s entire genome is stored indefinitely, making it vulnerable to future use beyond what was originally disclosed or intended.

The risks extend far beyond the individual child. Storing and using DNA in this way opens the door to familial searching or even forensic genealogy, where genetic information is used to identify relatives of individuals already in the database. That means a child’s DNA could be used to implicate parents, siblings, or extended family members, even if those relatives have never interacted with the criminal justice or immigration systems. Moreover, these practices disproportionately affect migrants from Latin America and other marginalized groups, raising the risk of genetic profiling as a tool of systemic discrimination.

The U.S. approach to collecting and storing DNA from migrant children sharply contrasts with practices in other democratic countries, particularly in the European Union. A landmark decision in 2008 by the European Court of Human Rights highlights the differences in approach. S. and Marper v. United Kingdom found that the indefinite retention of DNA profiles from individuals who have not been convicted of a crime—especially children—violated the right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the wake of that decision, most European countries adopted policies mandating the deletion of DNA profiles of and samples from such individuals, with additional safeguards for juveniles such as age limits.

That is not to say that the EU is not also wrestling with similar issues in the context of biometric surveillance, particularly surrounding immigration enforcement. The EU’s Eurodac asylum management system, while historically limited to collecting fingerprints from asylum seekers and  undocumented migrants over age 14, is currently undergoing significant expansion. Under recent reforms, Eurodac will now include facial images, retain more personal data (such as names and certain documents), and lower the biometric collection age to 6. These moves have drawn strong criticism from human rights and child welfare advocates. Importantly, however, the EU does not collect or store DNA from migrant children for inclusion in criminal databases, though it has found limited use in the context of family reunification.

Given the serious legal and ethical concerns outlined above, the current U.S. system of widespread DNA collection from migrant children demands immediate reform. A growing number of legal scholars, bioethicists, and civil liberties groups—including the authors of the Raiding the Genome report—have called for a moratorium on these practices pending legislative and judicial review. Though the program has already been challenged in the courts, there are a number of immediate steps that policymakers should take regardless of the outcome of those cases:  

• First, Congress should enact legislation that prohibits the routine collection of DNA from migrant minors, particularly those under 14 years of age. Any collection should be allowed only in truly exceptional, individualized circumstances. Examples might include a child who is a direct suspect in a serious crime or perhaps a narrow situation of verifying family relationships for reunification—and even then, only with a judge’s approval. Broad collection from civil detainees should not be permitted.
• Second, DNA profiles and samples from children who are not involved in criminal investigations should be promptly expunged from the FBI’s CODIS database.
• Third, there must be greater transparency and oversight, a need highlighted in a 2023 Government Accountability Office report. Agencies involved in the collection and storage of genetic data (such as the Department of Homeland Security, CBP, and ICE) should publicly report key metrics such as the number of children’s profiles added to CODIS, the average age of individuals, the basis for collection, and how long DNA samples are retained. Oversight should not be left to internal review; ideally an interdisciplinary independent body should be tasked with auditing these practices.

Immigration policy is undeniably a complex and challenging issue that requires balancing legitimate national security interests against fundamental human rights. Yet one thing should be clear: Migrant children who are not suspected of crimes should not have their genetic privacy compromised by policies intended for criminal enforcement.

These developments, unfortunately, occur against a much broader backdrop that includes widespread reductions in public health initiatives, research funding, and community support services. Policies that lack appropriate oversight and disproportionately affect children risk compounding existing health inequities and further eroding trust in public institutions. When migrant families fear that access to health care or other essential services could expose them or their families to DNA collection and government surveillance, the ramifications will be felt well beyond the border.

James W. Hazel, PhD, JD, is a senior researcher and lecturer at the Law Centre for Health and Life, Amsterdam Law School, University. LinkedIn jwhazel