US Expands Biometric Policing
Federal agencies are rolling out facial recognition technology to local police departments, expanding surveillance capabilities
The United States government is expanding its use of biometric policing, with the Secret Service testing a mobile facial recognition technology app called Sentry. The app allows officers to scan a person's face or fingerprints with a smartphone and compare the images against government databases. This move marks the latest expansion of federal biometric identification tools into street-level federal law enforcement encounters. The Uniformed Division is currently field testing the app, which would intersect with the Office of Field Operations if operationally deployed.
A Department of Homeland Security document, revealed on June 18, 2026, outlines plans to issue local police departments with facial recognition technology. This move would extend immigration-enforcement surveillance into everyday policing, raising concerns about privacy and civil liberties. The plan is part of a broader effort to expand the use of biometric policing in the United States, with the Secret Service's test of the Sentry app being just one example. The Department of Homeland Security has not disclosed the cost of the plan or the timeline for implementation.
The use of facial recognition technology has been criticized for its potential to disproportionately affect marginalized groups, who may be more likely to be misidentified by the technology. This can lead to wrongful arrests and other negative consequences. Additionally, the use of facial recognition technology raises concerns about identity theft and cybersecurity, as faceprints can be used to track individuals without their consent. Meta's Smart Glasses, for example, are testing facial recognition software used by police and the military, which has sparked concerns about the potential for abuse.
The expansion of biometric policing in the United States is not unique, with other countries also exploring the use of facial recognition technology. In the United Kingdom, for example, the government has announced plans to ban under-16s from social media, with some adults required to undergo age-verification checks, which could include facial recognition checks. The plan is set to start soon, although the exact date has not been disclosed. In the United States, some cities are also exploring the use of facial recognition technology, including on public buses, which has ignited debate over security and privacy.
The delay in implementing facial recognition technology on public buses in some cities has been due to technical and financial issues, including the need to upgrade Wi-Fi routers and secure state government funding. Despite these challenges, the use of biometric policing is likely to continue to expand in the United States, with the Secret Service's test of the Sentry app and the Department of Homeland Security's plan to issue local police departments with facial recognition technology being just two examples. The cost of these efforts is not yet clear, but it is likely to be significant, with some estimates suggesting that the market for facial recognition technology could reach billions of dollars in the coming years.
As I reflect on the US expanding biometric policing, I strongly believe that this trend threatens our civil liberties and privacy. My thesis is that the unchecked growth of biometric surveillance will inevitably lead to a surveillance state where citizens are constantly monitored. If nothing changes, the winners will be the government and large corporations that provide these technologies, such as Clearview AI and Palantir, which will reap massive profits from the lucrative biometrics market. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens will be the losers, stripped of their anonymity and autonomy in public spaces, forced to live in a society where their every move is tracked and analyzed.
Cross-reference independently — do not take our word for it.
Disclosure: NewsAnarchist uses AI-assisted reporting with web search. Always verify primary sources linked above.
This article is produced by NewsAnarchist's AI reporting system, not a human staff reporter. It's built from the primary source cited above (a FOIA release, an agency's own policy or procurement document, court filings from surveillance litigation, or the wire reporting linked in the body) and reports what that source states, attributed to it — it does not allege intent behind a surveillance program beyond what the record shows. Part of our Surveillance State hub. Found an error? Tell us.