On March 13, 2025, **Hugo Moreno-Mendez** arrived at the McLennan County Probation Department in Waco, Texas, for what he expected to be a routine check-in. Instead, **ICE** officers were waiting to arrest him. He was subsequently charged with failing to register as a noncitizen and, notably, refusing to provide DNA while in federal custody—a misdemeanor that **ICE** itself, as of 2021, was reportedly unaware had ever been prosecuted. Moreno-Mendez's case highlights a troubling trend: a sweeping expansion of DNA collection from individuals held for civil immigration violations. This federal initiative, backed by the threat of prosecution, is systematically adding the genetic profiles of nearly everyone in **ICE** custody to an **FBI** database primarily designed for criminal investigations. ### DHS Becomes Largest Source of DNA Profiles New research from **Georgetown Law's Center on Privacy and Technology** estimates that the **Department of Homeland Security** (**DHS**) has become the largest single source of new genetic profiles in the nation's criminal DNA system. **ICE** alone may have contributed as many as 920,000 profiles in 2025. Crucially, the vast majority of people in **ICE** custody have no criminal convictions, and residing in the U.S. without documentation is typically a civil, not criminal, offense. However, once these DNA profiles enter the **FBI**’s **Combined DNA Index System** (**CODIS**), law enforcement agencies nationwide can compare them against evidence from unsolved crimes, and even against crime-scene DNA collected years or decades into the future. The physical DNA sample, containing a person's entire genome, is stored in a federal laboratory indefinitely. ### Expanding Scope and Congressional Scrutiny This expansion of DNA collection has extended to families in immigration detention and has sparked lawsuits from protesters and others who allege they were improperly subjected to the program. Congressional scrutiny has also intensified, particularly after lawmakers learned that children were being swabbed at a family detention center in Dilley, Texas. U.S. Representatives **Joaquin Castro**, **Greg Stanton**, and **Nanette Barragán** issued a joint statement to WIRED, emphasizing, "None of the families at Dilley have been convicted of a crime. They do not belong in a database meant for violent criminals, especially children." **DHS**, in response to queries, defended DNA collection as a border-security and identification measure. They stated that **Customs and Border Protection** (**CBP**) takes samples from individuals arrested on federal charges and detained noncitizens subject to fingerprinting and not otherwise exempt. **DHS** did not address Georgetown's estimate regarding **ICE**'s potential contribution of hundreds of thousands of profiles to **CODIS** in 2025. ### A Dramatic Shift in Collection Rates Historically, migrant DNA collection primarily occurred at the border, with **CBP** swabbing individuals in its custody. **ICE**'s contribution was marginal. Internal training slides obtained by Georgetown through the **Freedom of Information Act** (**FOIA**) indicate that **ICE** collected approximately 20,000 DNA samples between fiscal year 2020 and mid-May 2021. In contrast, **CBP** sent the **FBI** the DNA of at least 1.36 million people between October 2020 and the end of 2024. However, Georgetown's new report suggests a significant shift in 2025. **FBI** records show the "detainee" index of **CODIS**—where **DHS**-collected profiles are stored—reached 3,345,692 profiles by December 2025, growing by roughly 995,000 that year alone. This equates to over 2,700 new profiles daily. While the **FBI** does not explicitly disclose which agency submitted which profile, Georgetown's analysis, comparing the total against **CBP** records showing 75,215 submissions in 2025, estimates that **ICE** may be responsible for as many as 919,908 new profiles in that single year. This change aligns with a broader shift where **ICE** now accounts for approximately 85 percent of immigration detentions, up from a previous majority held by **CBP**. ### The Legal and Regulatory Foundation The increased DNA collection by U.S. law enforcement stems from a legal and regulatory change initiated over two decades ago. In 2005, Congress authorized federal agencies to collect DNA from individuals arrested, charged, convicted, or detained under federal authority. For years, **Justice Department** regulations allowed **DHS** to exempt many people in immigration custody due to resource burdens. However, in 2020, the **DOJ** eliminated this exemption. In December of that year, **ICE** issued Directive 10092.1, mandating officers to collect DNA from nearly all individuals in its custody. Internal 2021 training materials obtained by Georgetown illustrate the broad interpretation of this policy. One slide from a May 2021 refresher course for **Enforcement and Removal Operations** (**ERO**) officers explicitly states that asylum seekers and refugees who have not adjusted their immigration status are not exempt and "therefore, their DNA must be sampled." Another slide, under a heading of "FUN FACTS," highlighted 69 confirmed **CODIS** hits from **ERO** samples in roughly six months, matching evidence in cases ranging from sexual offenses and homicide to property crimes and even a stolen Pinto. Before the 2020 rule change, profiles from people detained under federal authority represented a negligible share of the **CODIS** index. Georgetown estimates they accounted for about 9 percent by 2024. If current collection rates persist, the center projects that **DHS** will have supplied over a third of that index by 2030, a milestone previously not anticipated until 2034. ### Questioning the "Primary Purpose" When the **Justice Department** changed its regulations in 2020, it defended DNA collection from immigration detainees partly as an administrative identification measure—similar to fingerprinting during booking. This distinction was significant, referencing the **U.S. Supreme Court** case *Maryland v. King*, which upheld warrantless DNA collection from individuals arrested for serious crimes, partly because the state argued the swabs were for identity and criminal history, not solely for investigating unrelated crimes. Georgetown has consistently argued that this rationale makes little sense in the immigration context, as samples are not merely used for identification but are sent to **CODIS** for comparison against unrelated crime evidence for years to come. In late March 2025, an **ICE** deputy official sought a legal opinion on "DNA testing for family units." An attorney within **ICE**'s **Office of the Principal Legal Advisor** responded, stating that the "primary purpose" of the government’s DNA-collection authority is to build "a national DNA database for solving crimes," rather than to establish family relationships. **Stevie Glaberson**, research director at **Georgetown Law’s Center on Privacy and Technology** and a coauthor of the report, asserts that this email dismantles the identification rationale previously used to defend the program. "The Fourth Amendment categorically prohibits the government from compelling you, without suspicion, to hand over your sensitive information on the speculation that it might be helpful for crime-solving in the future," Glaberson stated. "But what this email shows is that that’s exactly what this program is for."