A new Trump administration rule that is expected to make it harder for many legal immigrants to obtain green cards if they receive or are deemed likely to need public assistance went into effect Friday – even as lawsuits seeking to halt it wind their way through federal court.
The effort is one of U.S. President Donald Trump’s latest moves to curb the number of immigrants in the U.S., including residents already living here legally.
What’s more, the rule could prompt many green card applicants and their families to forgo receiving needed federal aid to avoid becoming considered “public charges” and hurting their chances of being approved.
Here’s what you need to know about Trump’s changes to the “public charge” rule:
What is a public charge?
Federal immigration officers have long reviewed green card applicants to ascertain whether they have the financial means to support themselves, among other considerations, to obtain permanent residency.
The Immigration Act of 1882 allowed the U.S. government to deny entry to applicants deemed likely to be unable to take care of themselves and wind up dependent on government assistance – in other words, become “public charges.”
In 1999, the Clinton administration defined a public charge as someone “primarily dependent” on government benefits. It considered only cash aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or Supplemental Security Income, and Medicaid for long-term institutional care.
The first Trump administration sought to widen that definition to encompass non-cash benefits, such as food stamps, Medicaid and housing subsidies. It announced the broader rule in 2019 and put it into effect in 2020.
However, the following March, a federal court nullified the rule, and the Biden administration rescinded it. Biden officials then issued a new rule in 2022 limiting consideration to cash benefits only and clarifying that family members’ use of federal benefit programs does not have an impact on applicants’ reviews.
What does the new Trump administration rule do?
The new rule is similar to what was implemented by the first Trump administration but more expansive.
The latest rule, published in July, allows immigration officers to consider a wider array of public assistance programs when determining whether green card applicants will likely become “public charges.” It also rescinds the 2022 rule.
“Under @POTUS Trump, DHS is restoring the basic principle that immigrants must be able to support themselves,” the Department of Homeland Security posted to X at the time. “We are reaffirming the requirement of self-reliance, protecting public resources, and ending policies that encouraged dependency on hard-working American taxpayers.”
The new rule does not specify which safety net programs should be considered, saying only that DHS “will consider the receipt of any means tested public benefits.”
That could potentially include a wider array of income-based assistance, such as food stamps, Medicaid, childcare subsidies, housing vouchers and Head Start, as well as certain tax breaks, such as the child tax credit, Maddie Geschu, director of policy and advocacy at the Protecting Immigrant Families Coalition, told CNN in July.
Also, the new rule allows immigration officers to consider government benefits applied for on behalf of family members, including children who are citizens.
Who would be affected?
About 588,000 applicants are subject to public charge reviews annually, on average, according to DHS.
But the so-called “chilling effect” could have an even wider impact as applicants and their families opt to stay away from safety net programs for fear of being denied green cards.
DHS estimates that about 950,000 people may opt to leave or not enroll in six public benefits programs it examined, including Medicaid, food stamps, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and federal rental assistance.
Undocumented immigrants would not be affected since they do not qualify for public aid.
What are the concerns about the rule?
Immigration advocates fear that the rule will deter eligible family members from applying for or remaining enrolled in public safety net programs, including school meals and WIC, which provides nutrition assistance and counseling to pregnant women, new mothers and young children.
“No parent should ever have to choose between feeding their children and keeping their family together,” Clarissa Hayes, deputy director of child nutrition programs and policy at the Food Research & Action Center, told reporters earlier this week. “We cannot allow fear and confusion to determine whether or not a child will have enough to eat.”
Also, the revised rule “really opens the green card process to abuse based on partisan politics or personal bias,” Geschu told reporters.
Earlier research on the prior Trump administration rule found that participation in programs among immigrant families and citizen children declined in 2019 and 2020, even among those not subject to it at the time, the advocates said.
Similarly, the latest effort would have widespread consequences. Some 3.7 million members of immigrant households could lose Medicaid, food stamps, housing benefits and other assistance, according to a George Washington University study published in December that analyzed the proposed rule. State economies could lose $27.4 billion as healthcare providers, grocery stores and other businesses lose revenue. Up to 212,000 jobs could be lost.
Why have some states and cities filed lawsuits?
A coalition of 22 states and the District of Columbia, led by New York, are suing to block the rule. A group of cities, led by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, has filed a similar lawsuit. They were both filed Monday in the Southern District of New York.
The states argue they would lose billions of dollars in federal funding if immigrants, particularly mixed-status families, disenroll from safety net programs due to fears about immigration consequences. And they say that the new rule gives “unfettered discretion for immigration officials to determine who can be excluded on public charge grounds.”
The determinations could “fundamentally depart from the core meaning of the term” public charge, according to the filing.
The cities, meanwhile, say in their filing that the rule will harm their public health and economic interests, including shifting costs for healthcare, food and housing to the cities and hurting their labor forces.
A group of advocacy organizations filed their own lawsuit against the rule in the Southern District of New York on Thursday, arguing it violates the Immigration and Nationality Act.
“At its core, this new rule is cruel: at a time when the cost of everything— from food to housing to healthcare — is unbearably high, immigrant families and U.S. citizen children will be punished for accessing these basic necessities,” Rebecca Telzak, co-executive director of Make the Road New York, said in a statement.
What happens next?
The rule went into effect on Friday.
Federal District Court Judge Ronnie Abrams of the Southern District of New York, an Obama appointee, set an initial conference for October 9 for the lawsuit brought by the states.
Tami Luhby, CNN
CNN’s Gloria Pazmino contributed to this report.
