Harsh New “Public Charge” Policy Will Threaten Lawful Immigration and Lead Families to Forgo Help They Need and Are Eligible for Under Federal Law

In a direct attack on lawful immigration, the Department of Homeland Security published a final rule that largely rescinds the current “public charge” rule, with plans to issue guidance in its place that would give immigration officers enormous discretion to negatively factor in the use of public benefits when certain people apply for lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. This policy will almost certainly result in families that include immigrants forgoing vital supports they are eligible for, which help them when they fall on hard times or when they work in important jobs — like caring for seniors and people with disabilities or cleaning offices and hospitals — that pay low wages.

Certain people who apply for family-based or work-related LPR status (also known as a green card) must undergo a “public charge” assessment. It is important to note that the public charge concept was created in the U.S. during the time of slavery as a way to cutoff the already limited ways that enslaved people could become emancipated. The concept was then imported into immigration policies.

For decades — under both Republican and Democratic administrations — the federal government clearly defined “public charge” as a person who is primarily dependent on the government for subsistence as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense. The new rule eliminates this clarity and opens the door to individual immigration officers choosing to consider virtually any program or factor.

This new rule is rescinding regulations issued by the Biden Administration, which largely reflected the definition of public charge that had been in place for decades. The Biden rule was published in response to a harsh rule created under the first Trump Administration that significantly broadened the definition of public charge to include receipt of a large array of benefits, including Medicaid, SNAP, and housing assistance, that officers previously could not consider in making a public charge assessment.

While court action ultimately halted the first Trump rule, it created enormous fear, and it deterred many people from accessing important benefits for themselves and their families. For example, in 2019, 31 percent of adults living in immigrant families where at least one member was not an LPR avoided enrolling in non-cash benefit programs (like Medicaid) out of fear related to obtaining LPR status.

The new Trump rule, which goes into effect on September 18, 2026, does not list benefit programs that immigration officers will or will not consider in future public charge assessments. But the rule’s explanatory text indicates that immigration officers may use their discretion to consider any “means tested” benefits as part of assessing an individual’s likelihood of becoming a public charge.

The rule’s preamble also appears to open the door for immigration officials, at their discretion, to consider benefit receipt by the family members of the individual applying for LPR status. For example, a U.S. citizen child’s receipt of health coverage through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which covered 38 percent of U.S. citizen children in 2024, according to the American Community Survey, could potentially be negatively factored into their parent’s financial assessment.

This ambiguity is sure to cause many people to forgo help they need and for which they are eligible — including supports that help millions of workers who are paid low wages and assistance directed at children so they can learn and grow. This policy and the Administration’s broader anti-immigrant actions could cause between 1.4 million to 4.1 million eligible people to disenroll from Medicaid or CHIP, including about 560,000 to about 1.7 million U.S. citizen children, KFF estimates.

This rule is sure to cause intense chill, which will have dire short- and long-term consequences. For example, the benefits associated with the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) include healthier births, more nutritious diets, improved infant feeding practices, better access to health care for children, and long-term success by improving cognitive development and educational prospects. If pregnant people forgo WIC assistance, or parents of infants and young children opt not to use WIC for their children, they’re at risk of missing out on these critical benefits.

Many people use basic needs programs at some point in their life. Looking at benefits use by U.S.-born citizens, who are not subject to public charge assessments, can illustrate both the far-reaching effects this new policy could have by showing the share of U.S.-born citizens who could fail this assessment if they were subject to it.

In 2020-2023, 8 percent of U.S.-born citizens used one of the cash assistance programs that immigration officers could negatively factor into public charge assessments under the rescinded Biden rule (Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and/or General Assistance). But a full 56 percent of U.S.-born citizens lived in a family that benefited from any of those cash benefits or Medicaid, CHIP, SNAP, the Earned Income Tax Credit, WIC, or rental assistance. An even larger share of U.S. citizens lives in a family that benefits from one of these supports over a longer period.

We don’t know if these programs will be listed in the forthcoming guidance, but the Administration included them as examples of what officers may consider in the rule’s preamble. It’s also important to note that this is not an exhaustive list of benefits that an immigration officer could factor into a public charge assessment under the rule.

The public charge test was intended to exclude people who rely primarily on the government for subsistence, not people — like 56 percent of U.S. citizens — whose families receive help from these programs at some point to remain healthy, productive, and thrive. Opening the door to consideration of so many new factors will give immigration officers far broader authority to use public charge both to exclude individuals from coming to the U.S. and to deny applications for LPR status from people who are not relying primarily on the government for subsistence and will not in the future.

Such discretion could also introduce significant risk of inconsistent and biased determinations, including bias based on race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, or religion. It would create an immigration system that only recognizes people with significant wealth as potential contributors to the United States. This denies the accomplishments of people who have come to the U.S. for hundreds of years, and those of their descendants. It also dismisses the contributions of people who work in important jobs in our communities who are paid low wages.

This policy is likely to be challenged in the courts. But it will undoubtedly lead people — including parents with U.S. citizen children — to forgo health coverage, food assistance, and other important benefits they need and qualify for, leaving them less healthy, hungrier, and unable to afford basic essentials.

This Administration’s actions, including its extreme immigration detention and deportation machine, have caused fear, confusion, and family separation and hardship for immigrants and their families. This effort will further harm people and communities who are already reeling.