Facial recognition is leaving the US border — and we should be concerned

A lawsuit over ICE agents allegedly using facial recognition on a U.S teenager highlights a broader shift: biometric identification is moving from border control into everyday public life. It’s a troubling development with implications not just for America but for the UK and other democracies, writes Lionel Eddy

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Illinois have been accused in court filings of using facial recognition technology on a teenage US citizen without consent. The allegation forms part of a lawsuit brought by the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its agencies.

Video cited in the lawsuit shows one agent asking another, “Can you do facials?” before a mobile phone was pointed at the teenager, appearing to capture an image of his face. The courts will determine what happened. 

Yet the case signals something larger: tools once associated with border checkpoints are increasingly being used in routine, interior encounters.

That development matters beyond the United States. In the United Kingdom, police forces are already deploying live facial recognition in public spaces, and some UK retailers are trialling similar systems to identify shoplifters. The migration of biometric identification from fixed, high-security environments into everyday civic settings is not uniquely American but a broader shift in how identity is verified in modern democracies.

The US lawsuit challenges ICE’s use of Mobile Fortify, a mobile facial recognition tool developed for field identification. The system checks captured biometric data against several DHS databases. What once required fixed infrastructure at airports or ports of entry can now be carried in an officer’s pocket.

Portability changes expectations. When biometric verification becomes mobile, it becomes easier to deploy in ordinary encounters. The distinction between exceptional border controls and everyday identity checks begins to erode.

This debate is unfolding during a period of heightened scrutiny of US immigration enforcement. In January, a federal immigration operation in Minnesota resulted in the fatal shooting of an unarmed ICU nurse, Alex Pretti, who had reportedly been observing proceedings. The incident prompted protests and bipartisan calls for investigation. Trust in interior enforcement powers is under strain.

Against that backdrop, the spread of mobile biometric tools takes on added weight. Identification systems sit within wider enforcement ecosystems. As agencies extend operations away from ports of entry and into neighbourhood streets, the rules governing data collection and retention become central to public confidence.

The Illinois lawsuit references a DHS analysis indicating that agents may use Mobile Fortify when they cannot immediately confirm an individual’s citizenship. The document acknowledges that biometric information may be collected from US citizens or lawful permanent residents. It also suggests that data may be retained for up to fifteen years, regardless of citizenship or age.

A fifteen-year retention period raises serious questions. A brief encounter in a public setting — even without arrest or charge — could generate a long-lasting biometric record. For minors, the implications are especially significant. A childhood interaction could leave a digital trace that persists into adulthood.

In 2023, DHS issued Directive 026-11 to set out how facial recognition should be used across the department. It recognised the sensitivity of biometric data and stated that it would not be collected or retained solely on the basis of protected characteristics such as age. It did not introduce specific safeguards for children. There was no requirement for parental notification and no shorter retention period for juvenile data.

A 2025 report from the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board noted that the directive was no longer publicly accessible on the DHS website, and the department could not confirm whether it remained in force. The Illinois lawsuit further alleges that it may have been rescinded.

In September 2025, US Senator Ed Markey wrote to ICE’s Acting Director, warning that biometric scanning — once associated with borders and airports — now appears to be used on “American streets”. His concern reflects a wider shift: identification tools introduced for limited contexts are migrating into ordinary civic life.

Policy uncertainty of this kind has consequences. Biometric systems derive legitimacy from transparent rules and durable oversight. When guidance appears unstable or difficult to verify, accountability becomes harder to assess. The technology continues to operate while its guardrails weaken.

Concerns about transparency and oversight are already familiar in the UK context. Civil liberties groups have challenged live facial recognition deployments by British police, arguing that statutory clarity and safeguards have not always kept pace with technological capability. The Information Commissioner’s Office has repeatedly emphasised that biometric data processing must meet strict standards under data protection law. As deployments expand, regulatory scrutiny intensifies.

The UK’s post-Brexit regulatory landscape adds further complexity. Divergence from the European Union’s evolving AI framework places greater responsibility on domestic institutions to ensure that oversight mechanisms remain robust and credible. The more embedded biometric systems become in policing and commercial settings, the more important consistency and transparency become.

The underlying issue, then, extends beyond any single lawsuit or jurisdiction. Biometric technologies turn the human face and fingerprint into authentication credentials. Once integrated into operational systems, they are difficult to reverse. Databases grow, retention periods extend and data flows between agencies.

Children occupy a distinct place in this landscape. Data protection regimes typically recognise heightened obligations where minors are concerned. Yet mobile facial recognition during enforcement encounters does not appear to trigger a clearly differentiated standard. That gap invites scrutiny in both the United States and the United Kingdom.

Public debate often focuses on technical accuracy or individual misuse. Those questions matter. A deeper issue lies in how quickly identification systems become routine. When biometric checks move from controlled checkpoints to ordinary encounters, expectations about privacy and identity shift with them.

Democratic oversight depends on clarity before systems become entrenched. Clear retention limits, transparent directives and specific protections for minors are not peripheral details. They define the boundaries of acceptable use.

The Illinois case will proceed through the courts. Whatever the judicial outcome, it marks a moment of transition. Facial recognition is moving beyond the US border and into everyday civic space.

For policymakers in Washington and Westminster alike, the central question is straightforward: are the rules keeping pace with the tools?

If they are not, biometric identification may become a routine feature of public life before societies have fully decided how far it should extend.

Lionel Eddy is an author, journalist and digital-rights commentator specialising in biometrics, digital identification systems and state surveillance technologies. His work examines facial recognition, CBDCs, smart-city infrastructures and the civil-liberty implications of digital governance. As Privacy & Digital Governance Correspondent for The European, he writes on privacy, biometric policy, government digital ID proposals and the societal impact of emerging identification technologies.

READ MORE: ‘The digital euro is coming — and Europe should be afraid of what comes with it‘. The European Central Bank wants a digital euro by 2029, promising convenience, privacy and continuity with cash. Yet beneath the assurances lies a far more troubling reality: a central bank digital currency that risks weakening privacy, distorting banking, and handing future governments an unprecedented lever over everyday economic life, writes Lionel Eddy.

Do you have news to share or expertise to contribute? The European welcomes insights from business leaders and sector specialists. Get in touch with our editorial team to find out more.