A Trump administration public charge rule took effect September 18, expanding the information immigration officers can consider when reviewing some applications for permanent residence.
The Department of Homeland Security has rescinded regulations adopted in 2022 that narrowly defined which public benefits entered a public charge assessment. Officers now have greater discretion to examine means-tested assistance together with an applicant’s finances, health, household circumstances and ability to support themselves.
Receiving Medicaid, SNAP or another benefit does not by itself produce a green card denial. The decision still depends on the full record. The central change is that the regulation no longer excludes as much information from that review.
The September 18 Rule Replaced the 2022 Framework
The final rule is formally titled Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility. DHS published it on July 20, 2026, at 91 FR 45324, under DHS Docket No. USCIS-2025-0304 and RIN 1615-AD06.
The Federal Register text states that the rule became effective September 18 and applies to applications for admission made from that date and adjustment-of-status applications postmarked or electronically submitted from September 18.
Applications already filed before the cutoff remain under the previous framework. Public benefits received before September 18 are also treated under the standards that applied under the 2022 rule.
The earlier 2022 Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility rule, published at 87 FR 55472, took effect in December 2022. The new DHS action rescinds the public charge regulations in 8 CFR 212.20 through 212.23 that came from that framework.
The video below provides additional background coverage of the policy change. The legal dates and requirements in this article are sourced separately to the DHS rule and court records linked in the text.
No Published Formula Gives Individual Benefits a Fixed Weight
No published formula gives Medicaid, SNAP or another benefit a fixed numerical weight in a public charge decision.
Two applicants with similar benefit histories can therefore receive different assessments because officers also consider income, assets, household circumstances, health, employment prospects, education and other evidence in the file.
Federal immigration law requires a totality-of-the-circumstances assessment. A required Affidavit of Support can also play an important role in cases where one is required.
DHS argues that the 2022 regulations restricted officer discretion too heavily. The final rule says the new approach allows officers to make individualized decisions using all relevant facts instead of a limited regulatory definition.
The Legal Aid Society has also highlighted the absence of a fixed weighting system, which leaves applicants with less certainty about how individual forms of assistance will be evaluated.
That uncertainty is already visible among immigration clients. Tampa immigration attorney Alina Husain told WUSF that clients “just don’t know how these rules are actually going to be enforced.”
SNAP, Medicaid and Housing Assistance Can Enter a Wider Review
Under the 2022 rule, the public charge definition focused largely on public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutional care paid by the government.
The new framework removes those limits. DHS can now consider a wider range of means-tested assistance, including non-cash programs, when officers evaluate the full circumstances of an applicant.
The final rule repeatedly discusses Medicaid, CHIP, nutrition assistance and housing programs as benefits whose use may be affected by the change. It also allows consideration of other means-tested public assistance rather than creating one closed list.
DHS made one important clarification during the rulemaking. Benefits received by a US citizen child are not automatically attributed to a parent who is undergoing a public charge assessment.
How the 2022 and 2026 Rules Differ
| Issue | 2022 Rule | Rule in Force Since September 18, 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Main benefits considered | Cash assistance for income maintenance and government-funded long-term institutional care | A wider range of means-tested public benefits can enter the assessment |
| SNAP, ordinary Medicaid and housing aid | Generally outside the public charge benefit definition | Can form part of the wider review when relevant to the applicant |
| Officer discretion | Regulations placed tighter limits on the information used in the assessment | Greater case-by-case discretion under the statutory factors |
| Applications already filed | Continues to govern covered cases filed before September 18 | Applies to covered applications filed from September 18 |
| Earlier benefit use | Controls treatment of benefits received before September 18 | Broader treatment applies prospectively after the effective date |
DHS Now Estimates About 1.27 Million People Could Leave or Avoid Benefits
The final DHS analysis estimates that an annual average of 587,706 adjustment-of-status applicants are subject to public charge review. The figure is based on fiscal years 2019 through 2024 and does not include people seeking admission at a port of entry.
The same final rule uses a 10.3% midpoint disenrollment rate for its estimate of indirect effects. Under that assumption, DHS calculates that about 1,265,993 people could leave or avoid enrollment in the public benefit programs examined.
The programs in the DHS model are Medicaid, CHIP, WIC, SNAP, TANF, SSI and federal rental assistance.
DHS also publishes a range rather than presenting the midpoint as a certain outcome. At a 3.3% disenrollment rate, the estimate falls to about 407,128 people. At 17.3%, it rises to about 2,124,753.
Those are forecasts produced by a regulatory model, not observed results after implementation.
The GWU Model Produces a Much Higher Estimate
Researchers Leighton Ku, Michael Krips and Hannah Silverman of George Washington University reached a substantially higher figure in their December 2025 analysis of the proposed policy.
Their economic and public health analysis used a 20% midpoint assumption for disenrollment and estimated the following effects:
- 3.7 million members of immigrant households losing or giving up covered benefits
- $27.4 billion in reduced state economic activity
- Up to 212,000 jobs lost through the wider economic effect
The 3.7 million figure is a midpoint model estimate, not a measured result. The analysis gives a range of roughly 1.85 million to 5.56 million people depending on the assumed disenrollment rate.
DHS addressed the GWU analysis directly in the final rule and rejected parts of its methodology. The department noted that GWU used the same 20% midpoint approach as another outside analysis, newer Medicaid and CHIP participation data and Congressional Budget Office estimates for program costs.
The gap is therefore not a simple disagreement over one number. DHS and GWU start with different assumptions about how many people in mixed-status households will change their behavior after the rule.
The estimates use different assumptions and should not be read as observed enrollment losses.
Two Lawsuits Were Filed Before the Rule Took Effect
The first challenge is State of New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, filed September 14 in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The case is docketed as 1:26-cv-07978. The complaint was filed by New York together with 21 other states and the District of Columbia.
The New York Attorney General’s office argues that DHS exceeded its authority and gave immigration officers too much discretion to decide who falls within the public charge ground.
New York Attorney General Letitia James has argued that the policy goes further than Congress intended. DHS, by contrast, says rescinding the 2022 restrictions restores the discretion Congress gave immigration officers under federal law.
A separate case, City of New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, is docketed as 1:26-cv-07982.
The plaintiffs include New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Santa Clara County and King County in Washington. Public Rights Project, which represents several of the local governments, argues that lower enrollment in federally funded programs could shift healthcare and other costs onto cities and counties.
The video below remains as additional coverage of the legal challenge. The docket numbers and filing dates above link directly to court-record indexes.
The lawsuits did not stop the rule from taking effect September 18. Both cases remain active.
Refugees, Asylees and Many Humanitarian Categories Remain Exempt
The public charge ground does not apply to every immigrant or every immigration application.
Refugees, people granted or seeking asylum and several humanitarian categories remain exempt. US citizens are not subject to the test, and applying for naturalization does not create a public charge assessment.
Ordinary renewal of an expiring green card also does not trigger a new public charge review.
International travel creates a narrower exception for some permanent residents. Under INA 101(a)(13)(C), a lawful permanent resident generally is not treated as seeking admission after travel unless one of several statutory conditions applies. One of those conditions is an absence from the United States lasting more than 180 continuous days.
A trip longer than 180 days can therefore expose a returning permanent resident to grounds of inadmissibility that normally do not arise during routine green card renewal. Other statutory exceptions can apply even after a shorter trip, including abandonment of permanent residence or certain criminal conduct.
The Public Charge Rule and the $100,000 Bond Proposal Are Different Policies
The administration is also pursuing other policies focused on the financial position of people seeking legal immigration status.
We previously reported on a separate proposal involving a green card bond of up to $100,000 for some applicants processing immigrant visas abroad.
| Policy | Public Charge Rule | Up to $100,000 Bond Proposal |
|---|---|---|
| Status | In force since September 18 | Separate proposal |
| Main focus | Likelihood that an applicant will become a public charge | Financial bond for certain immigrant visa applicants |
| Where it operates | Covered admission and adjustment-of-status decisions | Certain consular processing cases abroad |
The immediate legal fight concerns the public charge rule already in force. The two New York cases are now asking federal judges to set aside or block the framework after DHS began applying it on September 18.
