The U.S. Homeland Security Department is currently seeking adjustments to a provision regarding the consideration of whether an applicant for a U.S. Permanent Resident Card, commonly known as a green card, would be deemed a “public charge.” This provision determines the eligibility for a green card based on whether the applicant is likely to primarily rely on public welfare benefits to live in the United States. The Department of Homeland Security is looking to revise this regulation.
The regulation that prohibits entry into the United States based on being a “public charge” typically applies to green card applicants, with exceptions for specific categories such as refugees and asylees.
In 2022, 54% of immigrant families, including naturalized citizens, legal immigrants, and undocumented immigrants, used one or more major welfare programs. In contrast, according to the Census Bureau, only 39% of native-born families in the U.S. used major welfare programs.
In November 2025, the Department of Homeland Security released a proposal to eliminate the current “public charge” rule and establish broader discretion standards.
The proposed policy adjustments would allow immigration officials to consider a wider range of public welfare benefits when assessing whether a green card applicant may become a public charge. These benefits include Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and housing assistance.
In the proposed rule-making notice, the Department of Homeland Security stated that the changes are aimed at encouraging self-sufficiency and preventing public welfare from being an incentive for immigration.
Critics argue that the proposed policy changes could lead to confusion and decrease participation among individuals who genuinely need public welfare programs.
The mandatory public comment period for the proposed rule ended on December 19, 2025, and received over 8,800 comments, including a joint opposition letter signed by attorneys general from 20 states. The Department of Homeland Security is now in the mandatory review phase, where they must review and respond to substantial issues raised by the public.
The review process could last several months. After the review is completed, the government may modify the rules based on feedback received before issuing the final rule, which would then formally take effect.
The proposed changes aim to revoke the “overly restrictive” public charge rule defined in previous administrations. Under the rule implemented in 2022, immigration officials were restricted from considering an applicant’s use of benefits like SNAP, Children’s Health Insurance Program, Medicaid, or housing assistance.
Under the current rule, officials could only consider cash benefits programs that provide monthly assistance for basic needs, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), as well as government-paid long-term care expenses like nursing home care.
According to the new proposal, officials would be authorized to consider the specific circumstances of all cases and any data related to an applicant’s personal self-sufficiency ability.
The proposal emphasizes that these adjustments will restore a process that trusts and relies on the good judgment and reasonable discretion of Department of Homeland Security officials, as envisaged by Congress.
During the application process for U.S. Permanent Resident status, a public charge bond is required. This bond is a monetary guarantee provided by a U.S. citizen or company to ensure that the green card applicant will not become a public charge. The Department of Homeland Security’s new proposal explicitly states that if an applicant receives “any public benefit that requires an economic status assessment,” it will be considered a violation of the public charge bond.
According to the new proposal, the efficacy of economic support agreements will also be diminished.
Currently, officials must “actively consider” any qualifying economic support agreements – agreements where a U.S. citizen, green card holder, or company commits to providing economic support to the applicant when necessary.
The new rule will also eliminate protections for immigrants in certain exempt categories who previously used public welfare benefits.
In some exempt categories, there is a pathway to citizenship that is not bound by the public charge rule. For other categories, such as individuals with Temporary Protected Status, this pathway does not exist. Temporary Protected Status is a temporary deportation relief measure provided to nationals of specific countries facing armed conflict, disasters, or other extraordinary conditions.
Under the 2022 regulations, individuals with Temporary Protected Status would not be penalized for using public welfare benefits even if they transitioned to non-protected status later. The new proposal would allow the Department of Homeland Security to consider an applicant’s use of public welfare benefits at any time, regardless of when those benefits were received.
The Department of Homeland Security noted that due to some individuals ceasing or avoiding the application for public welfare benefits, the new policy could annually reduce government spending by approximately $8.97 billion. Of this, federal government spending would decrease by $5.29 billion, and state spending would decrease by $3.68 billion.
The current regulations primarily evaluate individual applicants, while the new rule will consider both the applicant and other household members’ mixed immigration and citizenship status, including mixed-status families.
According to an analysis by the Center for Migration Studies based in New York, there were approximately 4.7 million mixed-status families in the U.S. in 2022. Based on an analysis of Department of Homeland Security data by the Epoch Times, mixed-status families receive over $51 billion in public welfare benefits annually.
However, for immigrants in mixed-status families who entered the U.S. as refugees or asylees, their use of public welfare benefits cannot be considered as a negative factor. According to data from the Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. accepted over 2.1 million refugees and over 800,000 asylees from 1990 to 2022.
The Department of Homeland Security stated that the new rule may affect some U.S. citizens residing in mixed-status families. If immediate relatives in the household, including U.S. citizens, have previously received public welfare benefits, the green card applicant may be negatively impacted. These U.S. citizens may choose not to access public welfare benefits to avoid affecting the green card applicant’s eligibility.
According to data released by the Department of Homeland Security, approximately 9.2 million individuals in mixed-status families received benefits such as SNAP, Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Supplemental Security Income. Additionally, around 343,000 households received federal rental assistance.
The Department of Homeland Security estimates that approximately 950,000 individuals (10% of the total) in mixed-status families may cease using or choose not to apply for public welfare programs if the current proposal is implemented.
The Department of Homeland Security noted that there was a significant decrease in the number of individuals receiving welfare benefits following the implementation of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, with decreases ranging from 21% to 54%.
The new proposal acknowledges that these changes could also impact institutions relying on public welfare funding. These institutions include hospitals and nonprofits associated with the Medicaid program, medical equipment and pharmaceutical companies, grocery stores accepting SNAP benefits, farmers supplying SNAP-eligible foods, and landlords participating in federally subsidized housing projects.
Since the 19th century, the U.S. has used “public charge” as a reason to refuse permanent residency applications. The Immigration Act of 1882 stated that foreigners who became public charges within one year of arriving in the U.S. would be deported.
For over a century, immigration officials have had broad discretion under the “totality of the circumstances” framework.
In 1996, the U.S. Congress enacted new requirements and policy goals. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 mandated that immigration officials “at a minimum” consider five statutory factors: age, health, family status, economic status, and education and skills.
In 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act established a “self-sufficiency” policy, emphasizing that immigrants should be able to support themselves economically without relying on U.S. government assistance, and that public welfare should not serve as an incentive for foreign immigrants to come to the U.S.
To adhere to the relevant laws of 1996, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now part of the Department of Homeland Security) issued guidance that narrowed the definition of “public charge.” The guidance aimed to prevent immigrants from avoiding necessary medical services because of the fear of visa application refusal.
The 1999 Interim Field Guidance defined “public charge” as being “primarily dependent on government for subsistence,” demonstrated by receiving “public cash assistance for income maintenance” or being government-funded institutionalized for long-term care.
The guidance explicitly stated that non-cash benefits like SNAP or general healthcare, as well as supplemental cash benefits, should not be considered.
For the next two decades, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) followed the 1999 Interim Field Guidance in its operations.
In 2019, the first Trump administration redefined “public charge”: an alien who accumulates one or more public benefits for more than 12 months within any 36-month period.
The 2019 Final Rule expanded the scope of “public benefits” to include SNAP, most forms of Medicaid, some forms of subsidized housing, and cash assistance programs. The expansion of the rule led to numerous lawsuits. In January 2020, the Supreme Court allowed the rule to take effect. However, the Biden administration halted the enforcement of the rule in March 2021.
In December 2022, the Biden administration implemented a new public charge rule, reverting to the narrower definition in the 1999 Interim Field Guidance.
The recent proposal from the Department of Homeland Security highlighted that the policies during the Biden era left minimal discretion or deviation.
The Department of Homeland Security stated in the proposal that rescinding the immigration policies of the Biden era would reduce the number of foreign individuals potentially reliant on public welfare staying in the U.S. The agency noted that this aligns with the legislative intent of welfare laws in 1996.
The Department of Homeland Security stated: “Both this Administration and Congress are clear about the national welfare and immigration policies that foreigners who lack self-sufficiency should not be allowed to enter the United States, nor should they be granted lawful permanent resident status.”
According to the proposed new rule, officials will have greater flexibility to respond to changes when federal or state governments adjust the eligibility criteria or benefit amounts for demand-based welfare programs. The previously passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act made significant adjustments to healthcare, Medicaid, and nutrition programs.
The proposal also supports the broader goals outlined in the executive order “Ending Taxpayer Subsidies for Open Borders” signed by President Trump in February 2025, aimed at preventing taxpayer money from encouraging illegal immigration.
These policy adjustments have drawn criticism from immigrant rights advocates. They are concerned that the policy may impact illegal immigrants and could potentially lead to a “chilling effect” among legal immigrants, causing them to refrain from seeking healthcare services or other benefits to avoid affecting the interests of illegal immigrant family members.
According to an analysis report released by the Kaiser Family Foundation based in San Francisco on December 2, 2025, the decreased participation in health insurance and other assistance programs could have negative effects on the health and economic stability of immigrant families and the growth and development of children.
The Kaiser Family Foundation’s data showed that one in ten adult immigrants reported refraining from participating or applying for public assistance programs in the past 12 months because they did not want others to notice their or their family’s immigrant status. The foundation also noted that this chilling effect is more pronounced in families with potential illegal immigrant members, reaching as high as 42%.
Steven Camarota, the director of the Center for Migration Studies, stated that both legal and illegal immigrants “broadly utilize the welfare system.”
“This raises the question: Why is our legal immigration system admitting so many people who can’t support themselves?” he said in a previous interview with the Epoch Times. “It’s not because they’re cheating. It’s not because they’re not working – most of them are working. It’s just that they’re poor. If you had to sum it up in one sentence, it’s that the cost of cheap labor is high.”
“We should be careful who we let into our country,” he said. “Once they’re here, it’s hard to prevent them from accessing benefits, so our goal should always be to stop those who need benefits from entering our country.”