Nonsense.
This is a gross oversimplification of the issue.
Did you bother to read the linked article?
‘Law enforcement routinely obtains search warrants to examine property or monitor telecommunications, even swab inside an inmate's mouth for DNA. But fingerprints have long remained in the class of evidence that doesn't require a warrant, along with providing handwriting samples or standing in a lineup. Courts have categorized fingerprints as "real or physical evidence" sourced from the body, unlike communications or knowledge, which cannot be compelled without violating the 5th Amendment.
George M. Dery III, a lawyer and criminal justice professor at California State University, Fullerton, likened the warrant to the government's request for a key.
"Before cell phones, much of this information would be found in a person's home," Dery said, noting that search warrants commonly authorize police to march into a home and seize evidence. "This has a warrant. Even though it is a big deal having someone open up their phone, they've gone to a judge and it means there's a likelihood of criminal activity."’
Correct.
Searches pursuant to a warrant are Constitutional, no Fourth or Fifth Amendment violations have taken place.
So it’s not a matter of ‘government wanting your fingerprint’ for some nefarious ‘Orwellian’ purpose – the notion is baseless demagoguery.
Absent a warrant, no citizen can be compelled to allow authorities to search his phone.
