2. Biometric Exit TrackingÂ
This legislative proposal creates a statutory mandate requiring the completion of a biometric exit-tracking system at all air, land, and seaports so that future administrations must complete and operate the system. DHS estimates the annual net costs to do this are $70 million. The creation of an entry-exit system to deter visa overstays was first required by Congress in 1996. Currently, the US government successfully collects biometric data—digital fingerprints, facial photographs, and sometimes eye scans—for virtually every foreign national upon arrival. The government has been far less effective at implementing the program for collecting the same data to confirm the exit of legal immigrants. Consequently, we have incomplete information on which immigrants were in the country at any given time, or which non-citizens failed to depart when their temporary stays expired, making enforcement against overstayers difficult.
Read More
Biographic matching at air and seaports based on required manifests filed by air and sea carriers was implemented in the late 1990s, and the creation of US-VISIT in the 2000s allowed for biometric entry collection at those ports. A biometric component was added to the law in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks. Biometric exit pilots were established in airports during the 2010s, and some biometric departure controls at land borders were implemented more recently. In 2025, the Trump Administration issued a new rulemaking to allow for the collection of various forms of biometrics at all ports of entry, and the country is getting closer to the system Congress envisioned, but it is still not complete. More historical background can be found here.
The Case ForÂ
Supporters argue that the exit-tracking system is necessary to ensure integrity in the immigration system. To build public trust and enhance national security, they contend that the government should know which immigrants are in the US at any given time. They argue that collecting biometric data of those who exit the country will give immigration enforcement a far more accurate idea of who has actually overstayed their visas. Advocates observe that this would assist enforcement in tracking down these individuals and facilitating their return before they have developed deeper roots in the US. It can also assist in targeting enforcement against those who may pose a security or criminal threat that is discovered after their entry.
Supporters observe that the best available evidence indicates that nearly half of immigrants who are here illegally actually entered legally but overstayed their visa. The estimated $3.5 – $5 billion price tag is worth it, they contend, to address the source of nearly half of all illegal immigration. Supporters argue that it’s an especially wise investment given that we’re spending $45 billion to stop the source of the other half of illegal immigration by completing the border wall system, and that with investments in interior enforcement in the OBBBA, the potential to locate and remove overstaying immigrants is higher when we can have accurate information. Because the government already successfully collects biometrics from virtually every foreign national upon arrival, proponents argue it is negligent not to track their departure. Backers argue a statutory mandate is necessary to lock in current efforts and prevent future administrations from abandoning the project.
The Case Against
Opponents argue that mandating a biometric exit system ignores the physical realities. Unlike entry processing, which occurs in centralized customs halls, US airports and land borders were never designed for outbound security checks. Beyond the $3.5- $5 billion cost, opponents observe that biometric measures at exit points would create logistical bottlenecks, severely harming global commerce and tourism. Critics point out a fundamental flaw in this massive price tag: spending up to $5 billion to confirm that someone left does nothing to physically remove those who stay. Opponents argue that simply generating an accurate ledger of visa overstays is functionally useless without the interior enforcement resources to locate and deport them, making this multi-billion-dollar exit infrastructure an expensive illusion of security.