The Biden management’s efforts to roll back Trump-era immigration policies face a new challenge as the former administration seeks to reinstate stricter criteria for determining who qualifies as a “public charge.” The proposed rule, set for publication Wednesday, would broaden the scope of benefits considered when assessing an immigrant’s likelihood of becoming reliant on government assistance, perhaps impacting their path to legal residency and raising concerns among advocates. The shift marks a return to a more restrictive immigration enforcement stance and revisits policies that were blocked by courts during the previous administration.
The Trump administration is moving to further restrict access to public benefits for immigrants in the United States, potentially jeopardizing their path to legal residency. A proposed rule, set to be published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, would broaden the criteria for determining whether an immigrant is a “public charge.”
The plan from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) would reverse a policy enacted during the Biden administration and reinstate a stricter definition of “public charge.”
Under the proposed rule, any past or future use of public benefits would be considered when evaluating an immigrant’s application for a green card. This shift could impact eligibility for programs previously excluded under the Biden administration, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), often referred to as food stamps, and Medicaid.
The National Immigration Law Center, a leading advocate for low-income immigrants, points out that the proposal also includes consideration of benefits subject to resource verification – a category historically not part of the “public charge” assessment. The move underscores a return to stricter immigration enforcement policies.
USCIS could also introduce further policy changes in the future without public notice or comment, according to the organization. This potential for shifting criteria raises concerns about due process for immigrants.
“The rescission would restore greater discretion to evaluate all relevant facts and align with the policy that aliens in the U.S. should be self-sufficient and that government benefits should not incentivize immigration,” the proposal states.
Immigration advocacy groups have warned that the new grounds for determining inadmissibility based on public charge are unclear. They also fear that immigrants who are eligible for these benefits may choose not to apply for them, fearing negative consequences for their legal status.
“This dangerous proposal puts the health and economic well-being of the nation at risk,” said Adriana Cadenas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights.
“By creating chaos and confusion, it discourages immigrants with legal status and U.S. citizens from seeking the health care and assistance they need and are entitled to under federal law,” she added.
“The Trump administration’s regressive plan to reinstate an outdated wealth test to determine public charge is yet another attack designed to sow fear and confusion in immigrant communities,” criticized Kica Matos, president of the National Immigration Law Center.
“Trump’s obsession with public charge is terribly consistent with his vision of turning the U.S. into a country where only white and wealthy people can belong and thrive,” she said in a statement.
Despite claims from Trump administration officials about fraudulent use of these benefits by immigrants, individuals without legal status are generally ineligible for SNAP and Medicare and Medicaid, with limited exceptions.
Changes to Immigrant Inadmissibility Based on Public Charge Over Recent Administrations
The public charge ground of inadmissibility, outlined in the Immigration and Nationality Act, allows immigration authorities to deny citizenship or change the status of non-citizens if they are deemed likely to become primarily dependent on government support.
In 2019, the Trump administration expanded the range of benefits that could be considered in a person’s immigration history when determining “public charge,” making it more difficult to obtain legal residency. This included programs like public housing assistance, SNAP, and most Medicaid benefits.
The measure created a chilling effect, with immigrants fearing to apply for benefits they were eligible for due to potential negative immigration consequences, a situation exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Several courts blocked the measure, and the Supreme Court eventually allowed it to take effect, albeit in a limited and temporary capacity while the appeal progressed.
Biden revoked the rule shortly after taking office to ensure certain protections for immigrants.
Now, the Trump administration aims to reinstate the stricter policy, returning to broader criteria for determining whether immigrants are likely to become dependent on the state, potentially increasing the risk of arbitrary denials and discretion for immigration officials.
U.S. citizens with non-citizen parents remain eligible for these social assistance programs.
Video Is it legal to be denied an immigrant visa for having a chronic illness? Attorney responds
