Donald Trump¡¯s remarks on immigrants¡¯ ¡°¡± and Americans¡¯ ¡°¡± have caused a wave of distress.

As Vox correspondent Zack Beauchamp last year, the US president has begun to emphasise ¡°American genes¡± ¨C rather than the traditional American values of liberty and opportunity ¨C as key to nation-building. Making America great again, then, would require a of . At its most crude level, it means returning those with ¡°bad genes¡± to the countries they came from and shutting down borders.

It is thus no surprise that Trump¡¯s construction of genetic borders includes DNA testing. But what could be an effective instrument for was launched by Trump as an effort to crack down on migrants posing as ¡°¡±.

Genetic borders are also emerging in the nation¡¯s interior, with the attempt to establish . Ultimately, DNA testing has become a tool for the policing and of immigrants, especially with some DNA samples being stored in the . Since 2024, DNA profiling of immigrants has also been permitted in .

ÌÇÐÄVlog

It is wrong, however, to assume that the public use of DNA testing concerns immigrants only. Several direct-to-consumer (DTC) genome testing services have expressed willingness to cooperate with , allowing detectives to find the owner of a DNA sample via whose DNA is in the companies¡¯ databases.

While this so-called investigative genetic genealogy is currently only done to solve criminal cases, a future increase of public-private cooperations for various other uses is not unthinkable ¨C especially under an administration that is seduced by genes.

ÌÇÐÄVlog

To Trump, the relevance of DNA to policing ¡°criminal immigrants¡± goes far beyond border-crossing. He believes many immigrants are violent offenders and that murder is ¡°in their genes¡±, as he . ¡°And we¡¯ve got a lot of bad genes in our country right now.¡±

While it is unclear where Trump finds his inspiration, it is, unfortunately, easy to co-opt research papers that speak about ¨C arguments that are popularised in the debate. Authors of genetic studies of violence do include disclaimers that emphasise the complexity of the issue and warn about misconceptions of their findings. Yet some of them are not without blame. Overstating the causal influence of genes on crime or aggression, or uncritically using phrases such as ¡°natural born killers¡±, invite simplifications that can help against alleged carriers of such genes.

Private companies do also play a role in the oversimplification of research findings. In what one could call ¡°genetic populism¡±, they draw on scientific papers to make curtailed statements about the role of genes in personality development. DTC genome services have ventured from heritage and ancestry research into selling individual profiling packages for the prediction of, for example, . This can easily be abused by politicians and the public alike to draw societal borders. That is, our search for ¡°identity¡± causes us not only to lose power over our genetic data, but also to render ourselves and scientific research vulnerable to genetic stereotyping.?

Data generation and sharing is vital for progress in genetics research, but geneticists have also about genetic privacy, not least in light of the growing private market for DNA data. More importantly, genetic research has been an important corrective to that can undergird exclusionary or eugenicist agendas. But the co-option of genetic research, whether by white supremacists or commercial enterprises, keeps being an issue. This leaves academics with some uncomfortable soul-searching to do: ¡°?¡±

ÌÇÐÄVlog

Answers to that question should include issuing public statements that condemn . Yet such statements may endorse the longstanding view of many scientists that research needs to and can rid itself of politics. In reality, science , no matter how much it wants to be.

Geneticists have found clear words about their don¡¯t populate our media debates and to ensure that research is in ways that makes its co-option by extremists more difficult. But they must ensure those words are heard ¨C partly by repeating them widely and often. Undoubtedly, Trump and his administration are responsible for the abuse of genetics for their political ends, but researchers can make a difference.

Avoiding the instrumentalisation of genetics for populism, exclusion and biological superiority narratives begins with the research question, the definition of parameters and the collection of data ¨C none of which are ¡°neutral¡± or given. It requires careful study design and research communication, delineating the choices taken and the limits of the findings¡¯ explanatory power. But it also requires more self-confidence among all of us to spot and stop campaigns of genetic exclusion.

is a professor in the department of criminology and sociology of law at the University of Oslo.

ÌÇÐÄVlog