Can noncitizens opt out of facial recognition when entering or leaving the United States?
Executive summary
Non‑citizens are generally required to have their faces photographed by CBP when entering or leaving the United States under a final DHS rule that takes effect December 26, 2025; the rule authorizes DHS to “require all aliens to be photographed” and to collect other biometrics from non‑exempt aliens [1]. Multiple news outlets and DHS materials report that U.S. citizens retain an opt‑out right—by requesting manual inspection—while most reporting and the Federal Register indicate non‑citizens cannot generally decline the biometric capture [2] [1] [3].
1. What the rule actually says: mandatory photos for “aliens”
The Federal Register rule amends DHS regulations to provide that DHS may require all “aliens” to be photographed when entering or exiting the United States and may require non‑exempt aliens to provide other biometrics; it makes the nationwide biometric entry‑exit program applicable across air, sea and land ports effective December 26, 2025 [1]. News summaries and industry writeups echo that the rule mandates facial photographs for every non‑U.S. citizen at entry and exit [4] [5].
2. The citizen carve‑out: opt‑out for U.S. citizens, but with caveats
DHS publications and reporting consistently state U.S. citizens may opt out of face recognition for non‑law‑enforcement uses by requesting manual identity verification or notifying an officer, and CBP and DHS say citizens’ photos are deleted within short retention windows in many cases [6] [2]. Several outlets note DHS warns opting out may cause delays or other travel disruptions, and oversight reports have criticized how clearly that opt‑out is communicated at ports [7] [8].
3. Non‑citizens: reporting indicates no general opt‑out
Multiple reputable reports say participation is mandatory for non‑citizens. TechCrunch states non‑citizens and most non‑U.S. residents cannot opt out of facial recognition on departing international flights, with only narrow exceptions (e.g., certain Canadian travelers and diplomats) [3]. Investigative Post and other outlets similarly report that participation will be compulsory for non‑citizens [7] [4].
4. How CBP and DHS frame the policy: security and accuracy
DHS and CBP justify the program as closing tracking gaps on visa overstays and preventing identity fraud; the Federal Register and agency summaries cite high match rates from tests and NIST results (greater than 98% matching cited) as evidence of reliability, and CBP claims operational accuracy above thresholds [1] [8]. DHS materials also stress that face recognition cannot be the sole basis for enforcement actions and point to privacy impact assessments and data‑retention rules that differ for citizens and non‑citizens [6] [9].
5. Civil‑liberties and practical objections: retention, demographic bias, and enforcement
Advocates and some oversight bodies have raised alarms. Reports reference the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and privacy groups highlighting disproportionate impacts on marginalized groups and questioning signage and opt‑out practices [8]. Critics also emphasize the long retention period for non‑citizen images—up to 75 years in some DHS systems—and broader concerns about data sharing and private sector involvement [2] [9].
6. Where reporting diverges: “can non‑citizens opt out?” vs. consumer‑advice pieces
Most legal and policy reporting says non‑citizens cannot generally opt out [1] [4] [5]. A small number of consumer‑facing guides suggest asking for manual verification at the gate could apply to non‑citizens as well [10], but that advice conflicts with TechCrunch’s and the Federal Register’s clear framing that the final rule authorizes mandatory photography of aliens and that only limited exceptions exist [3] [1]. Available sources do not mention a broad right for non‑citizens to decline biometric capture without consequence.
7. What this means for travelers and advocates
For non‑citizen travelers, the rule means automated facial capture will be routine at U.S. ports of entry and departure starting late December 2025, with few exceptions reported; manual inspection options described for citizens are not presented as a general alternative for non‑citizens in primary sources [1] [3]. Privacy advocates should focus on retention limits, transparency, redress for mismatches, and narrow statutory or regulatory carve‑outs; DHS materials cite privacy impact assessments and retention rules but civil‑liberties groups remain critical [9] [2] [8].
Limitations: this analysis relies solely on the provided reporting and the Federal Register notice; it does not include case law, agency policy memos beyond cited sources, or later agency guidance that might carve out further exceptions after December 26, 2025. Available sources do not mention any other legal mechanisms that would let most non‑citizens broadly opt out without being subject to manual inspection or other consequences [1] [3].