The expansion has been driven by specific legal and bureaucratic levers. Foremost was an April 2020 Justice Department rule that revoked a long-standing waiver allowing DHS to skip DNA collection from immigration detainees, effectively green-lighting mass sampling. Later that summer, the FBI signed off on rules that let police booking stations run arrestee cheek swabs through Rapid DNA machines—automated devices that can spit out CODIS-ready profiles in under two hours.

The strain of the changes became apparent in subsequent years. Former FBI director Christopher Wray warned during Senate testimony in 2023 that the flood of DNA samples from DHS threatened to overwhelm the bureau’s systems. The 2020 rule change, he said, had pushed the FBI from a historic average of a few thousand monthly submissions to 92,000 per month—over 10 times its traditional intake. The surge, he cautioned, had created a backlog of roughly 650,000 unprocessed kits, raising the risk that people detained by DHS could be released before DNA checks produced investigative leads.

Under Trump’s renewed executive order on border enforcement, signed in January 2025, DHS agencies were instructed to deploy “any available technologies” to verify family ties and identity, a directive that explicitly covers genetic testing. This month, federal officials announced that it was soliciting new bids to install Rapid DNA at local booking facilities around the country, with combined awards of up to $3 million available.

“The Department of Homeland Security has been piloting a secret DNA collection program of American citizens since 2020. Now, the training wheels have come off,” said Anthony Enriquez, vice president of advocacy at Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights. “In 2025, Congress handed DHS a $178 billion check, making it the nation’s costliest law enforcement agency, even as the president gutted its civil rights watchdogs and the Supreme Court repeatedly signed off on unconstitutional tactics.”

Oversight bodies and lawmakers have raised alarms about the program. As early as 2021, the DHS Inspector General found the department lacked central oversight of DNA collection and that years of noncompliance that can undermine public safety—echoing an earlier rebuke from the Office of Special Counsel, which called CBP’s failures an “unacceptable dereliction.”

US senator Ron Wyden more recently pressed DHS and DOJ for explanations about why children’s DNA is being captured and whether CODIS has any mechanism to reject improperly obtained samples, saying the program was never intended to collect and permanently retain the DNA of all noncitizens, warning the children are likely to be “treated by law enforcement as suspects for every investigation of every future crime, indefinitely.”

Rights advocates allege that CBP’s DNA collection program has morphed into a sweeping genetic surveillance regime, with samples from migrants and even US citizens fed into criminal databases absent transparency, legal safeguards, or limits on retention. Georgetown’s privacy center points out that once DHS creates and uploads a CODIS profile, the government retains the physical DNA sample indefinitely, with no procedure to revisit or remove profiles when the legality of the detention is in doubt.

In parallel, Georgetown and allied groups have sued DHS over its refusal to fully release records about the program, highlighting how little the public knows about how DNA is being used, stored, or shared once it enters CODIS.

Taken together, these revelations may suggest a quiet repurposing of CODIS. A system long described as a forensic breakthrough is being remade into a surveillance archive—sweeping up immigrants, travelers, and US citizens alike, with few checks on the agents deciding whose DNA ends up in the federal government’s most intimate database.

“There’s much we still don’t know about DHS’s DNA collection activities,” Georgetown’s Glaberson says. “We’ve had to sue the agencies just to get them to do their statutory duty, and even then they’ve flouted court orders. The public has a right to know what its government is up to, and we’ll keep fighting to bring this program into the light.”

Other Good MagSafe Wallets

ESR Magnetic Wallet HaloLock With Find My for $40: Like Apple’s MagSafe wallet, this one has Find My support. You can use the flap on the back as a grip and fit two cards easily. It does require recharging with a proprietary cable, which is annoying, though it didn’t lose much battery life after six months. Too bad I’ve already lost the cable.

OtterBox Symmetry Series Cactus Leather MagSafe Wallet for $45: It’s nice and simple, thin, lightweight, has a strong hold on my phone case, and offers a dedicated fabric-covered slot at the bottom to push the cards out (I was able to fit three without much trouble). This OtterBox wallet is made from cactus-based leather, which feels nearly as luxurious as real leather. Just know that cactus leather isn’t as eco-friendly as it’s made out to be—these cases are still infused with layers of plastics.

Apple FineWoven MagSafe Case for $50: Any time the wallet is separated from your iPhone, you’ll get an alert and can track it in Apple’s Find My app. It has a single slot that can fit up to three cards, but to take the cards out, you have to remove it from your iPhone and push the cards up via the slot on the back. Unfortunately, Apple’s MagSafe wallets exclusively use the company’s proprietary FineWoven material (made of recycled materials). It’s a commendable effort to reduce reliance on leather production, but several WIRED reviewers have said the material doesn’t hold up all that well after some time.

Bluebonnet Minimalist Full-Grain Leather MagSafe Wallet Card Holder for $68: Bluebonnet’s wallet is thin, even with cards inside, and also comes with an elastic grip you can put your fingers through to hold the phone more securely. The magnets are stronger than those in other wallets I’ve tested, though the bottom moves a bit when using the grip. Bluebonnet claims it can fit up to three cards, but I’ve been able to fit only two (my license and debit card). It’s a struggle to insert or remove more than that.

Avoid This Wallet

Ohsnap! Snap Grip Wallet for $100: I had high hopes for this one, mainly because of its build quality. The wallet is aluminum, can hold up to eight cards (depending on whether they’re lettered or not), has MagSafe support, and comes with a grip that doubles as a kickstand. Unfortunately, the grip is made of plastic, and it broke after a short time (it won’t fold properly back into place). The magnetic hold isn’t as strong as other MagSafe wallets, even with a MagSafe-approved case on my phone. None of that is great, especially at this high price.

Benks 600D MagSafe Wallet with Stand for $33: The Benks 600D MagSafe wallet might be made with Kelvar, but it sure doesn’t feel like it. The inside shell of the wallet is made with plastic, and after just a day of use, I spotted a crack in that plastic right next to the hinge. Worse, I tried to apply a bit of pressure to see if the hinge would still hold up, which completely warped the MagSafe ring. Even without clear durability problems, this wallet wouldn’t make the top of the list. It’s reasonably priced at $30 and comes in a handful of attractive colors, but it’s limited to just three cards, and there’s no easy way to get them out.

Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting and exclusive subscriber content that’s too important to ignore. Subscribe Today.

Public electric vehicle charging stations in America have a bad reputation. They’re notorious for breaking down, charging at a snail’s pace, refusing customer payment and leaving drivers stranded without juice.

Advocates for electric vehicles, or EVs, worry that reliability concerns are hampering adoption at a critical moment in the campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but data on the topic is limited.

To address this problem, researchers at the University of Washington designed a survey to tease out exactly how much a car owner’s perception of public charging reliability influences their willingness to buy their first EV. The research was published in Transport Policy.

The team created a series of hypothetical scenarios to study the factors that might nudge a skeptical shopper towards an EV over a gasoline-powered car, including vehicle and gas prices, driving range and public charging access.

The results were dramatic. Participants with a negative view of public charging were much less likely to choose an EV than those with a moderate view. It took some serious hypothetical improvements to offset those negative perceptions: The EV needed to be discounted 30%, have 366 extra miles of range or there needed to be 30,000 additional public charging stations.

“No one knew how much charger reliability was coloring the decisions of prospective EV buyers,” said senior author Don MacKenzie, a UW associate professor of civil and environmental engineering.

“I was not at all surprised by the direction of the response. What surprised me was the size. These were monster results. This is a warning for the whole industry.”

The results come at a tenuous time for EV adoption in America. The market continues to grow, but political factors like the end of federal tax incentives are complicating sales outlooks. The federal government is also challenging California’s plan to phase out gas car sales, which could threaten similar efforts in Washington and several other states.

The state of public charging isn’t inspiring confidence in buyers, either. Studies in recent years have shown significant reliability issues with public networks. There are signs that the situation is improving, and home charging is an option for some drivers, but the threat of slow and flaky public chargers remains a powerful deterrent for anyone venturing outside their “home range.”

“We know there’s a lot of range anxiety out there,” said lead author Rubina Singh, a UW doctoral student of civil and environmental engineering. “EV owners often tolerate charging problems, while newcomers are less aware of the hurdles. If trust erodes, adoption could slow.”

The team found it tricky to measure the link between station reliability and buyer behavior because there weren’t obvious real-world groups to compare. Tesla’s stations get consistently higher marks than other networks, but Tesla cars and their owners are too different in other ways to make for a useful comparison. Simply asking people for their thoughts about charging may produce answers that are colored by their overall feelings about EVs.

Instead, the researchers turned to hypothetical scenarios. They recruited roughly 1,500 participants who had never owned an EV and surveyed them in three groups, asking the first to picture a world where public charging is a mess, the second to imagine a charging utopia and the third to simply give their preexisting opinions about charging.

Each group then went “shopping.” Each round of the survey, participants chose between an EV and a comparable gas-powered car. The researchers tweaked variables such as vehicle cost, gas prices and range, and trends emerged over several rounds.

Participants with a negative view of public charging demanded strikingly large concessions before choosing an EV. In some cases, the adjustment needed was nonsensically large.

“People wanted a 366-mile increase in range before they bought an EV,” MacKenzie said. “Lots of EVs don’t even have a 366-mile range today. That’s obviously not a practical demand. But it illustrates the strength of this effect.”

There were other surprises in the data, too.

“The results were basically the same for people who have access to home charging and people who don’t,” Singh said. “So even if they wouldn’t actually have to rely on the charging network, respondents were still concerned about reliability.”

As the auto industry works to bring EVs into the mainstream, these findings are both a warning and an invitation for further study. Little is known, Singh said, about what specific improvements would have the greatest impact on public charging perception. Asking the right questions could help stakeholders throughout the industry figure out where to invest.

“What are the specific factors that would convince skeptics?” she said. “Does a station need to be online 90% of the time to improve a user’s perception? Or 95%? Or 99%? Or would improving the point of sale system help more? Where do you put your dollars to have the greatest effect on public perception?”

What’s clear, MacKenzie said, is that reliability must be prioritized as charging networks expand.

“This is the Achilles’ heel right now for EVs,” he said.

“If we push the broader market towards EVs, or if it grows on its own before we can fix this problem, it’s really bad news for continued growth. I think it could engender a real backlash. It only takes one bad experience to lose a customer. That’s a big danger for EV adoption.”