DHS Wants to Make Some Immigrants and Visitors Take a DNA Sex Test

The public comment period for the proposal has begun.

Photo by Warren Umoh on Unsplash

A proposed change to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule could impose “biological sex” DNA testing on millions of immigrants and Americans as part of the Department’s mass biometric surveillance program—which also includes retinal scans, voice capture, and more.

In addition to the obvious human rights violations posed by the changes—which, among other things, would amend policy to allow children to be targeted by biometric surveillance—it would put a target on the back of trans, intersex, and gender nonconforming people, as well as women and trans people of color, citizens and non-citizens alike.

“Under this proposed rule, DHS may also require, request, or accept raw DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) or DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, as evidence of genetic relationship, to determine eligibility for immigration and naturalization benefits or to perform any other functions necessary for administering and enforcing immigration and naturalization laws,” the proposal reads. “Where evidence of a relationship is required, this rule proposes to grant DHS express authority to require, request, or accept raw DNA or DNA test results (which include a partial DNA profile) from relevant parties such as applicants, petitioners, derivatives, dependents, and beneficiaries, to prove or disprove the existence of a claimed, or unclaimed, genetic relationship or biological sex.”

For example, it says, “DHS may request DNA evidence to prove or disprove an individual’s biological sex in instances where that determination will impact benefit eligibility.”

The policy as proposed doesn’t have many safeguards for privacy or constitutionality—the government can retain someone’s DNA profile indefinitely. It could further be weaponized to deny bids for immigration or asylum, out trans and intersex women being held in detention (who may not even know they are intersex otherwise), and track individuals in perpetuity through “continuous vetting.”

The DHS claims these changes will enable immigration officials to perform more thorough background checks, prevent fraud, and enforce immigration and naturalization laws. But it’s not only new arrivals that could be forcibly subjected to this treatment—longtime residents, naturalized citizens, and the families and sponsors of immigrants may also have to submit to sex tests.

Alejandra Caraballo, an instructor at Harvard’s cyber law program who has also provided legal aid to trans immigrants, called the initiative “dystopian.” When paired with troubling innovations in surveillance tech and attempts to criminalize trans people’s very existence, she says, the devastating potential of this rule, if finalized, cannot be overstated.

“You can create a digital Panopticon,” Caraballo said.

There is a 60-day public comment period ahead of any formal implementation.

The policy in question falls under the guidelines for the Collection and Use of Biometrics by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. It’s a revitalized version of a 2020 proposal from Donald Trump’s first term empowering Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as well as Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to launch dragnet surveillance campaigns.

That original bid was struck down by the Biden Administration before it could take effect, but Trump 2.0 brought it back with added provisions greenlighting sex testing via buccal swab—in other words, testing the chromosomal composition of DNA in a person’s saliva.

These biometrics can be used to trace and quash dissent, surveil marginalized communities, and add massive obstacles to trans, intersex and gender nonconforming people entering the country, including asylum seekers who may be fleeing gender-based violence abroad. If you can’t prove you’re a “biological woman” to the White House’s liking, then your ability to file for relief under, say, the Violence Against Women Act, may become more difficult.

Depending on a variety of factors, such as a person’s country of origin, this kind of sex testing can cost a small fortune. Not to mention the implications of such a policy ahead of the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles—if the U.S. government can grant or deny visa requests based on its own unscientific and inexact definitions of “biological sex,” then it can functionally control who gets to compete. And we know from decades of sports scandals that sex testing is also weaponized against cisgender women, and disproportionately, women of color. Think: Imane Khelif, Caster Semenya, or one of the eight women who suddenly found out they were intersex during sex testing at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, likely ending their athletics careers.

Even before the DHS added the new sex testing provision, countless medical groups, politicians, legal scholars, and human rights organizations decried Trump’s biometric powergrab. During the public comment process for the 2020 version of the policy, the American Medical Association argued that authorities lack “the capability to collect and process DNA at the appropriate scientific level to ensure evidence-based standards,” and that it further robs women and children fleeing violence of “informed, non-coercive consent.”

Meanwhile, The National Center for Lesbian Rights chimed in that the rule tramples privacy rights and “empowers mass and unprecedented surveillance” of the LGBTQ community. And the Congressional Committee on Homeland Security said the rule would increase the already staggering backlog of immigrant applicants under the DHS while endangering the personal data of millions.

“Like any authoritarian regime, they want control over the population, and they feel like they need control over the identification of every single person, in a multitude of ways, so that they can be tracked,” Caraballo told Erin in the Morning. “There’s no more anonymity.”