The Trump administration is proposing to change how the federal government assesses who should be barred from getting a green card or immigrating to the United States because they are likely to become a “public charge.” This term has been in U.S. immigration law for more than a century and has generally meant someone who is mainly reliant on the government for basic needs.
In a proposed rule issued in November, the administration seeks to remove provisions it says “straight-jacket” officers making public-charge assessments. By rescinding all prior regulatory specificity about how public charge is defined—and 26 years of precedent governing which benefits use should be considered—the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would give frontline officers vast discretion in applying the law.
The withdrawal of earlier federal guidance would mean that service providers could no longer provide any bright-line instruction to immigrant families about which public benefits are safe to access without harming future immigration options and which are not. The rule leaves open the possibility that even use of Head Start, free school lunch, care at Community Health Centers, or other programs could hurt future green-card applications.
If finalized as written, the administration’s sweeping moves could also jeopardize the use of public benefits by the U.S.-citizen children of immigrants. The proposed rule would eliminate current (and past) language that states the use of public benefits by family members does not count against green-card applicants.
The likely result will be that many immigrant families will be afraid to access any public benefits for which a household member is eligible, forgoing supports in times of need to preserve future immigration prospects. Noncitizens who are eligible for public benefits already utilize them at lower rates than the U.S. born. And most immigrants eligible for public benefits already have a green card or U.S. citizenship, and therefore would not face a future public-charge test. But given the complexities of benefits eligibility and immigration laws, hundreds of thousands of people in immigrant families—if not more—may nonetheless feel deterred from accessing needed supports.
As the proposed rule itself recognizes, this could lead to “worse health outcomes” for immigrants and communities, as well as “increased poverty, housing instability, reduced productivity, and lower educational attainment.” In doing so, the futures of millions of U.S.-citizen children may be hampered.
History of Public Charge
Since 1882, federal law has barred the immigration of people likely to become a public charge. Public-charge assessments apply to visa applicants abroad and green-card applicants within the United States. (Refugees, asylees, Cuban and Haitian entrants, and certain other humanitarian groups are exempt.)
U.S. law never formally defined the term public charge until 1999, when the Clinton administration issued a definition: Individuals who were “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence” with determinations of public charge required to rest on either receipt of cash assistance (such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF] or Supplemental Security Income [SSI]) or long-term institutionalization at government expense. That definition, put in place to counter the chilling effects that arose after mid-1990s changes to welfare law, remained until the first Trump term.
Changes During the First Trump Term
In 2019, DHS issued a regulation to substantially broaden the definition of public charge to include anyone who received certain public benefits for more than 12 months in a 36-month period. This regulation extensively detailed which prior public benefits use would count in a public-charge determination. Importantly, it also specified what would not be considered: use of benefits not explicitly listed in the rule, benefits use by applicants’ family members or that occurred before the final regulation, and the use of Medicaid by children or during pregnancy.
Litigation limited how long the new rule was in force. However, even before its implementation, news of the coming change caused immigrant families to disenroll from public benefits or never sign up. In December 2018, roughly one in seven adults in immigrant families said they or their relatives had avoided public benefits out of fear of immigration consequences. Even 9 percent of adults in U.S.-citizen families said their family had avoided benefits use. The impacts also extended to U.S.-citizen children. The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) found that public benefits use fell twice as fast between 2016 and 2019 for U.S.-citizen children who lived with noncitizens as for those who lived only with citizens—even though children’s benefits use had no bearing on public-charge tests.
A Brief Restoration
In 2021, the Biden administration restored the 1999 definition, codifying it in regulation in 2022.
The Trump administration now seeks to void that 2022 regulation, without issuing new guidelines. DHS says it will issue future instructions for adjudicators; that guidance will likely not be offered for public scrutiny before it takes force.
Chilling Effects Ahead
If clear guidelines are abolished, immigrant families may avoid using any public benefit for which they are eligible—not least because they and the service providers tasked with helping them could be left with no way to predict which usage by any family member could hurt a noncitizen’s future immigration prospects.
The chilling effects are likely to be far greater than those observed during the first Trump term, for several reasons. First, the elimination of all guidelines on which benefits will be considered leaves open the possibility that welfare-adjacent programs, including child-care subsidies, public health programs, or even use of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) could potentially block future immigration. Second, the rule opens the possibility that family members’ benefits use will count against immigrants. Noncitizen parents may therefore worry about enrolling their children in any government program. And third, the rule comes amid a range of other compounding policy changes.
The proposed rule follows recent congressional cuts to key benefits programs for refugees, asylees, humanitarian parolees, and other lawfully present immigrants, further complicating already confusing eligibility rules. At the same time, federal agencies are moving to classify a range of additional programs—such as Head Start, Community Health Centers, family planning, and adult education—as “federal public benefits.” These changes suggest use of these programs could potentially be considered in a public-charge test. Finally, ramped-up and highly visible immigration enforcement and efforts to share public-benefit application data with DHS already are chilling benefits use by immigrant families.
Because of the prevalence of mixed-status families, millions of benefits recipients—primarily U.S. citizens or green-card holders—live with relatives hoping to obtain permanent residence. For example, MPI estimates that 5.3 million U.S.-citizen children lived in mid-2023 with an unauthorized immigrant parent (only a fraction of whom received public benefits). If even a small share of people in mixed-status households withdrew from benefits, hundreds of thousands of children could lose access to vital economic supports.
Effects on Future Immigration
The proposed rule’s lack of guidelines for applying a public-charge test could also significantly affect future immigration, depending on how adjudicators exercise their discretion. Already, the State Department has instructed consular officers to consider visa applicants’ age and health, including obesity and mental health, in deciding if someone is likely to become a public charge.
The new proposed rule asserts that immigrants who cannot be self-sufficient or supported by family or private entities should not be granted permanent status in the country. But consular and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers are not experts in how health conditions or past benefits use predict future self-sufficiency. Research shows immigrants often use public benefits as a launching pad to future economic success. And a strong body of research shows that children who receive economic supports in childhood have better health, education, and employment outcomes in adulthood.
Further, decades of court and administrative decisions have established that time-limited benefits receipt, on its own, should not cast someone as likely to become a public charge, particularly if the person can work or has family support. But the proposed rule provides no assurance that DHS will train adjudicators on this case law.
Without clear guidance, rulings may vary widely from adjudicator to adjudicator. Individual biases could animate decisions, potentially reshaping the face of U.S. immigration. The recent DHS framing of officers as “homeland defenders” charged with protecting U.S. culture also raises serious questions about the environment shaping future decisions.
Intended Chilling Effects?
The proposed rule is likely to be finalized in early 2026. It will probably face litigation, but the courts may allow the rule to take effect even as legal challenges proceed.
If the final rule looks similar to the draft, the main impact may well be sharp reductions in the number of U.S. citizens and green-card holders in immigrant families who access a wide range of public benefits.
This could have serious implications for family and community well-being during times of need. Parents may forgo health-care services and child-care, housing, and food supports that help them achieve stable employment, secure safe housing, and reach self-sufficiency. Spells of family poverty without access to medical, nutrition, housing, and other supports can hamper children’s health, development, educational attainment, and future success. And the effects can extend into communities, affecting health, school environments, and even local economies.
The immigration consequences are less certain. With adjudicators’ unconstrained discretion, immigration decisions may be highly variable and unpredictable.
DHS acknowledges the proposed rule could harm the health and wellbeing of children and families. If the Trump administration wanted to reduce these harms, it could clarify that children’s benefits usage will not be used against parents, or that use of certain basic health, education, and housing programs would not be considered.
But the proposed rule’s acknowledgment of likely harmful impacts suggests that perhaps the chilling effects are, after all, part of the intended outcome.
Trump Administration Public-Charge Rule Would Amplify Harms to Immigrant Families
The Trump administration is proposing to change how the federal government assesses who should be barred from getting a green card or immigrating to the United States because they are likely to become a “public charge.” This term has been in U.S. immigration law for more than a century and has generally meant someone who is mainly reliant on the government for basic needs.
In a proposed rule issued in November, the administration seeks to remove provisions it says “straight-jacket” officers making public-charge assessments. By rescinding all prior regulatory specificity about how public charge is defined—and 26 years of precedent governing which benefits use should be considered—the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would give frontline officers vast discretion in applying the law.
The withdrawal of earlier federal guidance would mean that service providers could no longer provide any bright-line instruction to immigrant families about which public benefits are safe to access without harming future immigration options and which are not. The rule leaves open the possibility that even use of Head Start, free school lunch, care at Community Health Centers, or other programs could hurt future green-card applications.
If finalized as written, the administration’s sweeping moves could also jeopardize the use of public benefits by the U.S.-citizen children of immigrants. The proposed rule would eliminate current (and past) language that states the use of public benefits by family members does not count against green-card applicants.
The likely result will be that many immigrant families will be afraid to access any public benefits for which a household member is eligible, forgoing supports in times of need to preserve future immigration prospects. Noncitizens who are eligible for public benefits already utilize them at lower rates than the U.S. born. And most immigrants eligible for public benefits already have a green card or U.S. citizenship, and therefore would not face a future public-charge test. But given the complexities of benefits eligibility and immigration laws, hundreds of thousands of people in immigrant families—if not more—may nonetheless feel deterred from accessing needed supports.
As the proposed rule itself recognizes, this could lead to “worse health outcomes” for immigrants and communities, as well as “increased poverty, housing instability, reduced productivity, and lower educational attainment.” In doing so, the futures of millions of U.S.-citizen children may be hampered.
History of Public Charge
Since 1882, federal law has barred the immigration of people likely to become a public charge. Public-charge assessments apply to visa applicants abroad and green-card applicants within the United States. (Refugees, asylees, Cuban and Haitian entrants, and certain other humanitarian groups are exempt.)
U.S. law never formally defined the term public charge until 1999, when the Clinton administration issued a definition: Individuals who were “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence” with determinations of public charge required to rest on either receipt of cash assistance (such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF] or Supplemental Security Income [SSI]) or long-term institutionalization at government expense. That definition, put in place to counter the chilling effects that arose after mid-1990s changes to welfare law, remained until the first Trump term.
Changes During the First Trump Term
In 2019, DHS issued a regulation to substantially broaden the definition of public charge to include anyone who received certain public benefits for more than 12 months in a 36-month period. This regulation extensively detailed which prior public benefits use would count in a public-charge determination. Importantly, it also specified what would not be considered: use of benefits not explicitly listed in the rule, benefits use by applicants’ family members or that occurred before the final regulation, and the use of Medicaid by children or during pregnancy.
Litigation limited how long the new rule was in force. However, even before its implementation, news of the coming change caused immigrant families to disenroll from public benefits or never sign up. In December 2018, roughly one in seven adults in immigrant families said they or their relatives had avoided public benefits out of fear of immigration consequences. Even 9 percent of adults in U.S.-citizen families said their family had avoided benefits use. The impacts also extended to U.S.-citizen children. The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) found that public benefits use fell twice as fast between 2016 and 2019 for U.S.-citizen children who lived with noncitizens as for those who lived only with citizens—even though children’s benefits use had no bearing on public-charge tests.
A Brief Restoration
In 2021, the Biden administration restored the 1999 definition, codifying it in regulation in 2022.
The Trump administration now seeks to void that 2022 regulation, without issuing new guidelines. DHS says it will issue future instructions for adjudicators; that guidance will likely not be offered for public scrutiny before it takes force.
Chilling Effects Ahead
If clear guidelines are abolished, immigrant families may avoid using any public benefit for which they are eligible—not least because they and the service providers tasked with helping them could be left with no way to predict which usage by any family member could hurt a noncitizen’s future immigration prospects.
The chilling effects are likely to be far greater than those observed during the first Trump term, for several reasons. First, the elimination of all guidelines on which benefits will be considered leaves open the possibility that welfare-adjacent programs, including child-care subsidies, public health programs, or even use of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) could potentially block future immigration. Second, the rule opens the possibility that family members’ benefits use will count against immigrants. Noncitizen parents may therefore worry about enrolling their children in any government program. And third, the rule comes amid a range of other compounding policy changes.
The proposed rule follows recent congressional cuts to key benefits programs for refugees, asylees, humanitarian parolees, and other lawfully present immigrants, further complicating already confusing eligibility rules. At the same time, federal agencies are moving to classify a range of additional programs—such as Head Start, Community Health Centers, family planning, and adult education—as “federal public benefits.” These changes suggest use of these programs could potentially be considered in a public-charge test. Finally, ramped-up and highly visible immigration enforcement and efforts to share public-benefit application data with DHS already are chilling benefits use by immigrant families.
Because of the prevalence of mixed-status families, millions of benefits recipients—primarily U.S. citizens or green-card holders—live with relatives hoping to obtain permanent residence. For example, MPI estimates that 5.3 million U.S.-citizen children lived in mid-2023 with an unauthorized immigrant parent (only a fraction of whom received public benefits). If even a small share of people in mixed-status households withdrew from benefits, hundreds of thousands of children could lose access to vital economic supports.
Effects on Future Immigration
The proposed rule’s lack of guidelines for applying a public-charge test could also significantly affect future immigration, depending on how adjudicators exercise their discretion. Already, the State Department has instructed consular officers to consider visa applicants’ age and health, including obesity and mental health, in deciding if someone is likely to become a public charge.
The new proposed rule asserts that immigrants who cannot be self-sufficient or supported by family or private entities should not be granted permanent status in the country. But consular and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers are not experts in how health conditions or past benefits use predict future self-sufficiency. Research shows immigrants often use public benefits as a launching pad to future economic success. And a strong body of research shows that children who receive economic supports in childhood have better health, education, and employment outcomes in adulthood.
Further, decades of court and administrative decisions have established that time-limited benefits receipt, on its own, should not cast someone as likely to become a public charge, particularly if the person can work or has family support. But the proposed rule provides no assurance that DHS will train adjudicators on this case law.
Without clear guidance, rulings may vary widely from adjudicator to adjudicator. Individual biases could animate decisions, potentially reshaping the face of U.S. immigration. The recent DHS framing of officers as “homeland defenders” charged with protecting U.S. culture also raises serious questions about the environment shaping future decisions.
Intended Chilling Effects?
The proposed rule is likely to be finalized in early 2026. It will probably face litigation, but the courts may allow the rule to take effect even as legal challenges proceed.
If the final rule looks similar to the draft, the main impact may well be sharp reductions in the number of U.S. citizens and green-card holders in immigrant families who access a wide range of public benefits.
This could have serious implications for family and community well-being during times of need. Parents may forgo health-care services and child-care, housing, and food supports that help them achieve stable employment, secure safe housing, and reach self-sufficiency. Spells of family poverty without access to medical, nutrition, housing, and other supports can hamper children’s health, development, educational attainment, and future success. And the effects can extend into communities, affecting health, school environments, and even local economies.
The immigration consequences are less certain. With adjudicators’ unconstrained discretion, immigration decisions may be highly variable and unpredictable.
DHS acknowledges the proposed rule could harm the health and wellbeing of children and families. If the Trump administration wanted to reduce these harms, it could clarify that children’s benefits usage will not be used against parents, or that use of certain basic health, education, and housing programs would not be considered.
But the proposed rule’s acknowledgment of likely harmful impacts suggests that perhaps the chilling effects are, after all, part of the intended outcome.