Why Trump’s New Green Card Rule Generates Controversy?

Washington, DC — A new rule from the Trump administration took effect this Friday, September 18, 2026. The rule, known as «public charge,» makes it harder for many legal immigrants to obtain a permanent resident card if they receive public assistance.

What Changes the Economic Self-Sufficiency Rule for Green Cards

Since 1882, immigration law has allowed denying entry to those who would likely depend on the government to survive. In 1999, the Clinton administration limited that definition to direct economic aid, such as Supplemental Security Income and institutional Medicaid.

The first Trump administration expanded that definition in 2019 to include food stamps and housing subsidies. A federal court struck down that rule in 2021 and the Biden administration repealed it the following year.

The version published in July 2026 is even broader than the 2019 version. It allows immigration officials to consider «the receipt of any public benefit subject to resource verification» and repeals the rule in effect since 2022.

The Department of Homeland Security Defends Immigrant Self-Sufficiency

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the federal agency that administers immigration policy, published the reasoning for the change on its verified X account. The agency argued that it restores the principle that immigrants should be able to support themselves.

«Under the presidency of @POTUS Trump, DHS is restoring the fundamental principle that immigrants must be capable of supporting themselves,» the agency posted. «We reaffirm the need for self-sufficiency and end policies that encouraged dependency,» it added.

According to Maddie Geschu, policy director of the Coalition for the Protection of Immigrant Families, the rule could encompass food stamps, Medicaid, childcare subsidies, housing vouchers, Head Start, and even the child tax credit. Geschu explained this in an interview with CNN last July.

How Many Families Could Be Affected by the New Immigration Assessment

DHS estimates that, on average, 588,000 green card applicants are subject to public charge reviews annually. However, the so-called «chilling effect» could have a much wider reach among immigrant families.

The agency itself estimates that some 950,000 people could withdraw from or avoid enrolling in six benefit programs, including Medicaid, food stamps, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and federal rental assistance. Undocumented people would not be directly affected since they do not qualify to receive public assistance.

A study from George Washington University, published in December 2025, projected that 3.7 million members of immigrant households could lose Medicaid, food stamps, or housing subsidies. The same analysis calculated losses of $27.4 billion for state economies and up to 212,000 affected jobs.

Current Legal Framework: The rule is based on the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which allows denying visas or status adjustments to those considered likely to depend on the government. Unlike a law passed by Congress, this is an administrative rule by DHS and the Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), so it can be modified or blocked through litigation, as happened with the 2019 version.

The Human Face Behind Fear of Losing Food Assistance

Clarissa Hayes, assistant director of child nutrition programs at the Food Research & Action Center, warned about the impact on families with young children. She spoke with journalists earlier this week about cases of parents considering withdrawing from the WIC program, which provides nutritional assistance to pregnant women and children.

«No parent should have to choose between feeding their children and keeping their family together,» Hayes said. Previous research on the 2019 rule showed that participation in assistance programs declined between 2019 and 2020, even among families not subject to the rule.

The States and Cities Suing to Block the Rule

A coalition of 22 states and the District of Columbia, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, filed a lawsuit to block the rule. California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the measure a policy that «continues to know no bounds» in a statement.

A separate group of cities, headed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, filed another similar lawsuit. Both actions were filed in the Southern District Court of New York against DHS, its secretary Markwayne Mullin, and USCIS director Joseph B. Edlow.

The plaintiffs argue that the rule grants «unlimited discretion» to immigration officials and departs from the legal meaning of «public charge.» They also claim that states would lose billions of dollars in federal funds if families withdraw from programs out of fear.

What Immigrant Families Can Do Now

Federal Judge Ronnie Abrams scheduled an initial hearing for October 9 on the states’ lawsuit. In the meantime, the rule remains in effect and applies to pending green card applications.

Immigration attorneys recommend not withdrawing from programs