Homeland Security stonewalling info on noncitizen DNA collection operation, lawsuit alleges
The Trump administration has been turning to DNA technology to help find and arrest immigrants, including children, but immigration advocates say it has been slow to spell out how it's using and overseeing the genetic information.
Three groups sued the Department of Homeland Security on Monday after trying to get records about the data collection program since last summer, during the Biden administration.
The plaintiffs are the Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology, part of the Georgetown University Law School that focuses on privacy and surveillance law and policy; the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights and Americans for Immigrant Justice, both immigrant rights groups.
The groups describe in their lawsuit their back-and-forth with DHS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection since they originally requested information about their DNA collection from noncitizens on Aug. 1, 2024.
Since 2020, DHS has expanded its DNA collection program and increased DNA contributions to the FBI's database, CODIS, by 5,000%, becoming the largest contributor, according to the Georgetown center. The DNA database of the FBI can be accessed by police across the country for criminal investigations, the plaintiff groups said in a statement.
Stevie Glaberson, director of research and advocacy at the Georgetown center, said in a statement that DHS is expanding its database by "collecting DNA from people accused of no crime and while operating with none of the constraints that are supposed to be in place before the government compels someone to give over their most sensitive personal information."
He said Americans deserve more visibility on the program and said DHS's lack of transparency is unacceptable.
DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Daniel Melo, senior staff attorney with Amica's Immigration Impact Lab, told NBC News that previous administrations have also collected DNA. A 2005 law mandated federal agencies collect DNA from people in custody, including noncitizens.
Prior to 2020, the Justice Department had told DHS that its immigration enforcement and border agents did not have to routinely collect DNA from every noncitizen it detained, Melo said. The Biden administration adopted rules requiring full compliance with the 2005 law, but whistleblowers and a government watchdog complained compliance was uneven.
The "Securing Our Borders" executive order signed by President Donald Trump requires the attorney general and the DHS to fulfill requirements on DNA collection from noncitizens mandated in the 2005 law.
Privacy and civil rights groups have long had issues with the government's DNA collection program. Melo said the public should be concerned whether people are being advised of their rights and how the information is being collected and used.
"This information could tentatively be used in all sorts of ways to map full communities, to basically build a more intricate web of surveillance around noncitizen communities," Melo said.
He said if DHS can continue to collect the DNA of noncitizens, essentially "experimenting" on them, "then they are able to refine these technologies and deploy them in new and interesting and probably really dangerous and scary ways on the rest of us."
Emily Tucker, the Georgetown center's executive director, said in a statement that "it is a mistake to think of DHS' DNA collection program as 'immigration enforcement.'"
"Trump is using immigration powers to justify the activities of his militarized federal police force because there is so little institutional or judicial oversight or accountability for executive enforcement actions that invoke 'immigration authority," she said in a statement. "This program is one part of a massive surveillance dragnet that sweeps in information about everyone. They will use it for deportation, but they will also use it to intimidate, silence, and target anyone they perceive as the enemy.'
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
24 minutes ago
- USA Today
Iran strikes US base after Trump bombing. Are you concerned about war? Tell us.
Last week, we asked you if the US should go to war with Iran. It looks like President Trump decided for us. We want to know how you feel about that. Last Thursday, on June 19, President Donald Trump said he would decide 'within the next two weeks' whether the United States would engage directly in the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel. Two days later, Trump announced the completion of a 'successful' attack on Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. On Monday, June 23, Iran responded by striking a U.S. military base in Qatar. And thus begins, perhaps, another U.S. 'forever war' in the Middle East. If you, like me, spent your entire life with America entrenched in Middle East conflicts – where friends and community members have laid down their lives for wars based on lies – then perhaps you, like me, are less than thrilled at this prospect. (Scroll down or click here to share your opinion with us.) And we're not alone. Do you think the US should have bombed Iran? In an Economist/YouGov poll released before the bombing, 60% of respondents said the U.S. military should not get directly involved. A majority – 56% – said that negotiations should continue. A Washington Post poll conducted June 18 found a similar pattern, with the majority of respondents opposing air strikes. And when USA TODAY conducted our own reader survey, we received an overwhelming response saying the United States should not get involved and America should refrain from official intervention. Previously: Should US go to war with Iran or support Israel from afar? Take our poll. | Opinion In the aftermath of the bombing, Americans – and the world – seem as divided as ever on the decision. Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, applauded the move and even encouraged it, telling The Wall Street Journal that he told the president, 'This will reset our relationship with the rest of the world.' Meanwhile MAGA faithful Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, took to X on Monday to break with Trump, writing, 'It feels like a complete bait and switch.' Less than a week later, we want to know if that feeling has changed. Do you think Trump was right to bomb Iran? Do you think he should have waited for approval from Congress? What do you think Iran – and America – will do next? Are you concerned about the threat of nuclear war? Why did Trump strike Iran? Will it change anything? Questions have swirled in the immediate fallout from the June 21 bombing. In a speech that evening, Trump claimed Iran's three major sites had been 'obliterated.' But less than a day later, the picture was much less certain, with weapons experts, Iranian officials and even Russia contesting the true impact of the attack. These new developments beg the question: Was it worth it? And, with countries pledging to arm Iran with nuclear weapons anyway, did it even change anything? We want to know what you think. Take our poll below, or send us an email with the subject line "Forum US Iran war" to forum@ We'll publish a collection of responses from all sides of the conversation in our next installment of the Opinion Forum. Janessa Hilliard is the director of audience for USA TODAY Opinion and Opinion at Gannett.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
4 Ways Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill' Will Change How You Plan for Retirement
President Donald Trump's signature legislation, dubbed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' includes plans for tax cuts, green energy cuts, Medicaid cuts and more. It also contains new retirement account provisions that could affect how Americans plan for their golden years. Be Aware: Read Next: As the landmark bill makes its way from the House to the Senate, here's a look at what you need to understand about how it can affect how you plan for retirement. Many Americans would receive a break on their taxes owed if the bill is passed. This means they would be able to channel more money into retirement savings accounts. 'Retirement planning fundamentally comes down to having sufficient resources to make work optional,' said Brett Horowitz, principal and wealth manager at Evensky & Katz / Foldes Financial Wealth Management. 'The proposed extensions of the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act provisions, combined with new deductions for tip income, overtime pay and seniors over 65, could significantly improve retirement outcomes for Americans.' Those who benefited from the cuts in the original Tax Cuts & Jobs Act will continue to enjoy these cuts, allowing them to continue saving for retirement as they had been. 'With many TCJA provisions set to expire at the end of 2025, the House Republican proposal to make these extensions permanent may provide the certainty we need for effective long-term planning,' Horowitz said. 'Retirement modeling depends on clear inputs and stable variables,' he continued. 'The less uncertainty in tax policy, the more accurately we can project success rates. When these changes take effect — pending Senate approval — we'll be able to deliver much better news to clients about their retirement timeline.' Horowitz believes if Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' does not ultimately pass, it could negatively affect Americans' abilities to save for retirement. 'There's a profound psychological difference between telling someone they can retire earlier than expected versus having to extend their working years,' he said. 'The former energizes people about their financial future; the latter can feel overwhelming. These tax provisions create the conditions where more Americans can realistically achieve comfortable retirement.' Learn More: Savvy long-term investment strategies should take taxes into account, so changes to tax laws can shift these strategies. 'Smart investing isn't actually about chasing the highest gross returns — it's about maximizing what clients actually keep after taxes and expenses, and this tax bill addresses some issues there,' Horowitz said. 'While we can control costs through low-fee funds, tax efficiency requires a more nuanced approach that varies by everyone's personal circumstances. 'Higher tax rates push us toward tax-free municipal bonds and tax-efficient ETFs in taxable accounts, while we place tax-inefficient investments in retirement accounts,' he continued. 'This 'tax location' strategy can significantly impact net returns, even if it means accounts perform differently.' 'Two provisions in the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act have created the most anxiety for our clients — the SALT deduction cap and estate tax exemptions,' Horowitz said. 'Both are getting significant relief under the current proposal.' The proposed increase in the SALT deduction cap means retirees will face less of a penalty if they choose to spend their golden years in a state with higher income taxes. 'The SALT deduction increase from $10,000 to $40,000 will reshape where people choose to live and retire,' Horowitz said. 'We've already seen migration patterns shift dramatically since 2017, with high-tax states losing residents to states like Florida and Texas. This change reduces the penalty for living in high-income-tax states, though it doesn't eliminate the advantage of no-tax states entirely.' Estate planning strategies would also change for many Americans if the bill were to pass. 'On the estate side, the current $13.99 million exemption was set to drop to $7.14 million in 2026 — a reduction that had wealthy clients scrambling to implement complex gifting strategies and trust structures,' Horowitz said. 'The proposed permanent increase to $15 million per person, or $30 million for couples, provides enormous relief for families in that middle tier.' This is particularly important because of state-level complications, Horowitz continued. 'Take New York, where you could face no federal estate tax, but still owe state estate taxes on estates between $7.16 million and $13.99 million,' he said. 'The interplay between federal and state rules makes domicile planning critical.' The 'One Big Beautiful Bill' should make estate planning less complex for many people. 'For clients who've already implemented sophisticated estate planning strategies, those structures remain valuable,' Horowitz said. 'But for families with estates under the new thresholds, this eliminates the pressure to make rushed gifting decisions or create complex trusts simply to avoid tax cliffs.' Overall, Horowitz believes the bill will make retirement planning easier. 'The permanent nature of these changes — assuming they pass — finally gives families the certainty to make long-term decisions about where to live, how to structure their wealth and when to implement estate planning strategies,' he said. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard 10 Genius Things Warren Buffett Says To Do With Your Money 5 Types of Cars Retirees Should Stay Away From Buying This article originally appeared on 4 Ways Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Will Change How You Plan for Retirement Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Newsweek
35 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Senate Bill Would Protect Thousands of Migrants From Deportation
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Senate Democrats introduced new legislation to protect hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have had their legal status revoked by the Trump administration. The so-called Safe Environment from Countries Under Repression and Emergency (SECURE) Act would offer "long-term stability" for those under Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) programs, if it is able to pass in a Republican-controlled Congress. Why It Matters The Trump administration has argued that TPS was abused by the Biden administration, allowing thousands of immigrants from countries including Venezuela, Afghanistan and Haiti to remain in the U.S. for longer than necessary. The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the White House to end some of these protections. The U.S. Capitol Building at dusk on June 21, 2025, in Washington. The U.S. Capitol Building at dusk on June 21, 2025, in To Know Democratic Senators Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump, and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada were among the 30 lawmakers backing the legislation that would open the pathway to permanent residency for those who received TPS. According to a press release from the group, TPS and DED holders in the U.S. for five years or longer would be eligible to apply for a green card, along with their spouse, domestic partner and children, as long as they met certain requirements. The bill would also make TPS applicants eligible for work and allow them to apply for travel outside the U.S. while their application is pending. TPS is usually granted for a period of 18 months, and it is up to the Secretary of Homeland Security to discontinue protections or extend them, which has been done for a number of countries for several years, including during the first Trump administration. Current Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has moved to end protections for those from Venezuela, Haiti, Cameroon, Afghanistan and Nepal since January. Under the Democrat-backed bill, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be required to notify Congress and justify why status was being revoked. Currently, about a half-million immigrants who were allowed to legally remain in the U.S. on TPS face the chance of deportation, some to countries still experiencing conditions that led to protections being introduced in the first place. Noem has argued that those situations have eased and that it is time for immigrants to return to their home countries. What People Are Saying Senator Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, in a press release: "America has long used the TPS and DED programs to offer special legal protections to individuals in the United States whose lives would be put at extreme risk if forced to return to their countries of origin. As they've sought safety and stability here, TPS and DED recipients have built new lives in America, living here legally for years—sometimes decades—and making important contributions to our communities. "But the Trump Administration is threatening both the lives they have built and the safety of these individuals—forcing TPS recipients to return to dangerous places like Haiti, Venezuela, Afghanistan, and more. This bill offers much-needed certainty to TPS and DED recipients – providing a path to stay safely in the U.S. and continue to call America their home." Liz Shuler, AFL-CIO president, in a press release: "Immigrant workers are under unprecedented attack: hundreds of thousands of people have been stripped of their legal status and work authorization, throwing families and industries into chaos and uncertainty. "Workers with Temporary Protected Status, many of whom have lived and worked in our country for decades, are vital members of our communities and our unions. The SECURE Act is common-sense legislation that would provide TPS holders with stable, permanent lawful status so they can continue to raise their families, work, and contribute to our economy." What Happens Next While 30 senators back the bill, it is not clear whether it will pass the chamber or be backed in the House, which is also controlled by Republicans.
