Forensic genealogy grants

Summary#

This bill, called the Carla Walker Act, creates a new federal grant program to help state, local, tribal, and forensic offices use forensic genetic genealogy (FGG) techniques and whole genome sequencing to generate investigative leads. It adds a new part to the federal crime control law that sets who can get grants, what the money may be used for, reporting rules, and a required DOJ report to Congress. The stated goal is to help solve crimes and identify unidentified human remains when standard DNA database searches do not produce leads.

• Main change: Authorizes two kinds of grants (DNA analysis grants and equipment grants) that focus on forensic genetic genealogy and whole genome sequencing compatible with multiple genealogical databases.
• Who can get grants: States, tribal/local law enforcement, prosecutors with lab capability, medical examiners, coroners, and publicly funded accredited forensic labs (depending on the grant).
• Spending limits: $5 million per year (2025–2029) for DNA analysis grants and $5 million per year (2025–2029) for equipment grants (two separate authorizations).
• Rules and oversight: Grantees must follow the DOJ “Interim Policy on Forensic Genealogical DNA Analysis and Searching” (Nov 1, 2019, or successor), keep records for audits, allow DOJ access for audits, and file annual reports on tests and results.
• Outsourcing allowed: Grantees may outsource work to accredited labs or private labs that promise to seek accreditation within two years.

What it means for you#

• State and local law enforcement, prosecutors, medical examiners, coroners

  • May apply for federal money to pay for whole genome sequencing and FGG searches when standard DNA database searches (CODIS) do not produce leads.
  • May outsource testing to outside labs, including private vendors, if those labs are accredited or promise to seek accreditation.
  • Must keep records, allow DOJ audits, and submit reports about cases tested and results.

• Publicly funded forensic laboratories

  • Can apply for equipment grants to buy machines, supplies, reagents, and validation work needed for FGG.
  • Must follow the DOJ interim policy on how FGG is done and how samples/data are handled.

• Private or nongovernmental labs

  • Can receive outsourced work from grantees if they are accredited or promise to seek accreditation within two years.
  • Might face costs and administrative work to achieve accreditation.

• Members of the public / people in investigations

  • The bill makes it more likely that jurisdictions will use whole genome sequencing and genealogical database searching to generate leads in cold cases or unidentified remains cases.
  • The bill does not itself set new rules about which genealogy databases or what user consent is required; it refers to databases “permitted to be used by law enforcement under this part,” and requires compliance with the DOJ interim policy.

Expenses#

Estimated public cost: The bill authorizes $5 million per year for DNA analysis grants and $5 million per year for equipment grants for fiscal years 2025–2029 (a total authorization of $10 million per year), subject to appropriation.

• Authorized appropriations: $5,000,000/year (2025–2029) for DNA analysis grants; $5,000,000/year (2025–2029) for equipment grants.
• Administrative cap: The Attorney General may use up to 10% of the DNA analysis grant funds for administrative costs.
• Restrictions on use: DNA analysis grant funds may not be used for staffing, training, travel, or equipment (equipment has a separate grant stream).
• Potential private costs: Nongovernmental labs that accept outsourced work may incur costs to obtain accreditation within two years; grantees must also maintain records and produce reports, which can add administrative costs for recipients.
• No additional fiscal note or detailed cost estimate is included beyond the authorization amounts in the bill text.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to expand the ability of public forensic actors to use forensic genetic genealogy and whole genome sequencing after standard DNA database searches fail.
• Supporters may argue this could help solve cold cases and identify unidentified human remains by creating investigative leads that other methods did not provide.
• The bill provides funding and a structured grant program rather than ad hoc purchases, which could standardize access to FGG tools for eligible public entities.
• The bill requires grantees to follow the DOJ interim policy and report results, which could promote oversight and data collection about outcomes and practices.
• Including outsourcing rules with an accreditation requirement seeks to ensure testing quality whether work is done in public or private labs.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is privacy and data-use issues: the bill increases public-sector use of genealogical searches and whole genome data, but it does not itself set new limits on which genealogy databases can be used or on consent practices beyond referencing the DOJ policy.
• The bill allows outsourcing to private labs, which may raise questions about data handling, commercial access to genetic data, and consistency of protections across different labs.
• The DNA analysis grant funds cannot pay for staffing, training, or equipment, which could limit the ability of smaller jurisdictions to implement FGG without separate resources.
• It is unclear how the phrase “compatible with multiple genealogical databases permitted to be used by law enforcement under this part” will be interpreted in practice and which databases will be considered permissible.
• Reporting and audit requirements are included, but the bill does not detail penalties or specific privacy safeguards beyond adherence to the DOJ interim policy, leaving some implementation details and protections unclear.