A growing effort to restrict immigrants’ access to public benefits

The Trump administration is seeking to restrict and discourage use of a broad range of services and assistance by immigrants and members of their families. The administration often describes its efforts as seeking to curtail “welfare for illegal aliens,” but the scope of these efforts goes far beyond what people may typically think of as “welfare” and affects many immigrants lawfully residing in the U.S. and citizens in families with non-citizen members. Some of the actions only affect people who are lawfully residing in the U.S. While the details are sometimes complex, the big picture is not. It is hard to see this as anything other than an effort to make life in the U.S. unsustainable for millions of families with immigrant members.

This discussion principally focuses on new restrictions and stated administration intentions to further restrict eligibility for benefits and services.  A range of other actions that could discourage benefit use, such as using benefits information for immigration enforcement efforts and new demands for information from federal grantees, are not discussed here, but may also have significant effects in discouraging benefits use.¹

Background: Non-citizens and federal public benefits

Before 1996, there was no comprehensive federal law governing when non-citizens could be eligible for federal benefits, though most unauthorized immigrants were ineligible for key federal public benefits. In the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), Congress created a definition of “federal public benefits” and established rules governing non-citizen eligibility for such benefits. In enacting the law, Congress emphasized its goal of removing “the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits.”² The law essentially established that some groups of non-citizens would be considered “not qualified” and ineligible for federal public benefits with narrow but important exceptions. Other non-citizens would be considered “qualified” and eligible for federal public benefits either on the same terms as citizens or after a five-year waiting period.

PRWORA defined qualified non-citizens to include persons lawfully admitted for permanent residence (i.e., with green cards), refugees and asylees, Cuban and Haitian entrants, persons paroled into the U.S. for at least a year, and some additional groups.³ All non-citizens who are not qualified immigrants are considered “not qualified.”  The not-qualified group includes persons with no legal permission to be in the United States, but also includes many persons who are legally permitted to be in the country, including persons with tourist, student or temporary work visas, persons with Temporary Protected Status; persons with protections through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and persons with short-term parole or awaiting action on an asylum application. While the largest number of non-qualified non-citizens have no legal permission to be in the United States, the category includes millions of other people.⁴

With limited exceptions, the 1996 law provided that qualified non-citizens could only receive “federal means-tested public benefits” after a five-year waiting period but would otherwise be eligible for federal public benefits on the same terms as citizens. Shortly after the law passed, HHS and other federal agencies concluded that the five-year waiting period applied to programs funded with mandatory funds such as Medicaid; the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps); the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program (principally, cash assistance and services for members of needy families); and the Supplemental Security Income Program (cash assistance for elderly, blind, and disabled persons).⁵ But, agencies concluded that the five-year waiting period did not apply to federal public benefits funded with discretionary funds, i.e., those funded through the annual appropriations process, such as housing benefits, low-income energy assistance, and child care subsidy assistance.

The 1996 law defined a federal public benefit as:

• any grant, contract, loan, professional license, or commercial license provided by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States; and
• any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States.⁶

The 1996 law provided for a set of narrow but important exceptions to the restrictions affecting not-qualified non-citizens: emergency Medicaid; short-term, non-cash, in-kind emergency disaster relief; public health assistance for immunizations and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases; and a “life or safety” exception. The law provided that the life or safety exception would apply to programs, services, or assistance specified by the Attorney General as necessary for the protection of life and safety, delivering in-kind services at the community level, and for which assistance is not based on income or resources (such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter).⁷ In 2001 guidance, the Attorney General published a list of such programs, including services and assistance relating to child protection; adult protective services, services for victims of domestic violence or other criminal activity; short-term shelter or housing assistance for the homeless, victims of domestic violence, or runaway, abused, or abandoned children.⁸

How the administration is restricting and attempting to restrict access to services and assistance

In 2025, Congress imposed new restrictions on eligibility for certain federal programs and tax credits through enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA); OBBBA was strongly supported by the Trump administration. In addition, the administration has gone far beyond the congressional action, by “reinterpreting” the 1996 law to impose significant new restrictions on a broad range of services and assistance across multiple programs.

 A. OBBBA restrictions

After 1996, there were a number of restorations of eligibility for particular categories of non-citizens in particular programs, but Congress never enacted legislation more restrictive than the 1996 law in its treatment of public benefits until the enactment of OBBBA. 

Before OBBBA, there were different tax rules for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), the Child Tax Credit, and premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). For the EITC, Congress specified in PRWORA that the taxpayer must have a Social Security number valid for employment; the spouse, if filing jointly, must also have one; and each qualifying child must have one. OBBBA did not change the EITC provisions. 

The Child Tax Credit did not initially have a requirement for a Social Security number valid for employment, but in 2017, Congress established a requirement that a child must have such a Social Security number in order to qualify. The ACA made premium tax credits available to non-citizens who were lawfully present, with an explicit provision saying that such credits would be available to people with incomes below 100 percent of the poverty line who were ineligible for Medicaid due to their immigration status. Congress’ use of “lawfully present” was intended to be broader than just including qualified non-citizens, and under HHS regulations, included temporary non-immigrants such as those with work and student visas, persons with employment authorization and various pending immigration applications.⁹

OBBBA revised non-citizen eligibility for SNAP, Medicaid, premium tax credits for health insurance, and Medicare to lawful permanent residents; Cuban and Haitian entrants; and individuals lawfully residing in the United States pursuant to a Compact of Free Association with Micronesia, the Marshall Islands or Palau. Congress left in place a provision of federal law that allows states the option to provide federally-assisted Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program coverage for lawfully residing pregnant women and children. 

Due to the OBBBA changes, even individuals who are qualified non-citizens under PRWORA or related provisions such as refugees, asylees, trafficking victims, and Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petitioners no longer qualify unless they fall within one of the above-noted eligible groups. Note that refugees and asylees can apply to become lawful permanent residents after one year as a refugee or asylee but will be ineligible until they become lawful permanent residents.   

OBBBA also eliminated the provision providing eligibility for premium tax credits for lawfully present people with incomes below 100 percent of poverty and ineligible for Medicaid based on immigration status. This will mean that lawful permanent residents subject to the Medicaid five-year bar will be ineligible for premium tax credits during those five years of Medicaid ineligibility.

As noted above, prior law permitted citizen children to qualify for the Child Tax Credit even if their parents did not have Social Security numbers valid for employment; as revised, the law provides that children are eligible only if the parent claiming the credit (or at least one parent, if filing jointly) has a Social Security number valid for employment.

Though much of the rhetoric in connection with OBBBA concerned benefits for “illegal aliens,” these OBBBA restrictions have nothing to do with unauthorized immigrants, as they were already ineligible. Rather, these provisions impose prohibitions on medical and nutrition assistance to persons who previously were eligible as qualified non-citizens. The restriction on premium tax credits denies these credits to persons who are lawfully present but do not fit within the groups specified by law. The restriction on the Child Tax Credit has the effect of denying the credit to citizen children who do not have a parent with a Social Security number valid for employment.

B. Administration actions and proposals  

In addition to the OBBBA restrictions, the Trump administration has adopted and announced intent to adopt multiple provisions restricting access to a range of public benefits and services for non-citizens and, in some instances, citizens residing with non-citizens.

The federal administrative actions were spurred by an Executive Order entitled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders” issued on February 19, 2025. The Order began by noting: “The plain text of Federal law, including the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193) (PRWORA), generally prohibits illegal aliens from obtaining most taxpayer-funded benefits…. But in the decades since the passage of the PRWORA, numerous administrations have acted to undermine the principles and limitations directed by the Congress through that law.” The Executive Order directed the head of each executive department or agency to take a set of actions, including to “identify all federally funded programs administered by the agency that currently permit illegal aliens to obtain any cash or non-cash public benefit, and, consistent with applicable law, take all appropriate actions to align such programs with the purposes of this order and the requirements of applicable Federal law, including the PRWORA.”

While the Executive Order described its focus as “illegal aliens,” in the months after issuance of the Executive Order:

• Multiple federal agencies announced that they were broadening what would count as a federal public benefit, which would have the effect of barring all not-qualified immigrants from access to these newly defined benefits.
• The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it would no longer consider any programs or services to be necessary for “life or safety,” meaning that many critical federally-funded benefits and services would no longer be available to persons who are “not-qualified”.
• DOJ announced that it had reconsidered what should count as a federal means-tested benefit, and would now consider any federal means-tested benefit, including those funded with discretionary funds; this will, if implemented, make many qualified immigrants subject to a five-year waiting period before being eligible for benefits such as child care, housing subsidies and low-income energy assistance.
• The Department of the Treasury announced it intended to initiate rulemaking to count the Earned Income Tax Credit and additional refundable tax credits as “public benefits” and therefore subject to PRWORA restrictions.
• The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) proposed that for federally assisted housing, an entire family would be ineligible unless all members of the family were citizens or eligible immigrants.

Notably, despite the broad-reaching impacts of these changes, they were repeatedly characterized as efforts to bar or restrict assistance for illegal aliens. The press release from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was headed “HHS Bans Illegal Aliens from Accessing its Taxpayer-Funded Programs.” The press release from the Department of Education (ED) was headed “U.S. Department of Education Ends Taxpayer Subsidization of Postsecondary Education for Illegal Aliens.” The press release from the Department of Labor (DOL) was headed “U.S. Department of Labor moves to prevent illegal immigrants from utilizing taxpayer-funded workforce programs.” The one from the Department of Agriculture (USDA) was headed “Secretary Rollins Prevents Illegal Aliens from Receiving Taxpayer-Funded SNAP Benefits.” DOJ’s simply said, “Attorney General Bondi Takes Action to End the Subsidization of Open Borders.”

Below is additional detail on each of these, followed by a discussion of where implementation stands in light of pending litigation.

I. Expanding what counts as a “federal public benefit.”

In mid-July, 2025, the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Education (ED), Labor (DOL) and Agriculture (USDA) issued statements announcing expansions of what they would consider to be federal public benefits. The effect of doing so was to make all not-qualified non-citizens, including those with permission to be in the U.S., ineligible for any programs or services that fell within the expanded definitions. HHS announced that 13 programs that had not previously been considered federal public benefits would now be considered as such, including Head Start; services under the Community Services Block Grant; the Title X Family Planning Program; the Health Center Program; services under the Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services Block Grant; the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant, and others.¹⁰ HHS explained that additional benefits and services not listed could be considered federal public benefits because HHS would count any federally-funded grant to an individual, state, institution, or seemingly any other entity, and any activities carried out by the grantee or subrecipient with the grant funds and provided to an individual, family, or household. The notice indicated that further guidance would be forthcoming.

ED announced that while states may not deny free public K-12 education on the basis of immigration status under Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), ED would apply the public benefits restrictions to adult education, career and technical education, and preschool programs administered by ED so long as such benefits are not protected under Plyler as part of a “basic” public education.¹¹ Contrary to prior guidance,¹² DOL announced that all participant-level services in DOL-funded programs will be considered federal public benefits subject to immigrant restrictions.¹³ It was less clear how USDA’s notice¹⁴ would affect USDA programs.

In November 2025, HUD issued a notice similar to the prior notices,¹⁵ saying that the term “federal public benefit” would apply to all HUD-issued grants and to any benefit or service provided to individuals, households or families, under programs including Continuum of Care and Emergency Solutions Grants for homelessness services; HOME, HOME-ARP, and the Housing Trust Fund for affordable housing and rental assistance; housing assistance for people with HIV/AIDS; and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and CDBG-Disaster Relief for local community-development and disaster-recovery housing aid.

On March 18, 2026, DOL announced that it was rescinding its July 2025 PRWORA guidance, saying it had decided to proceed through notice-and-comment rulemaking in order to facilitate further consideration and implementation of PRWORA requirements and to obtain input from interested stakeholders.¹⁶ The other agencies have not rescinded their statements, though, as discussed below, litigation has affected implementation. 

II. Ending “life or safety” exceptions.

On July 16, 2025, the Attorney General issued a statement¹⁷ saying that DOJ would not designate any benefits as necessary for the protection of life or safety. DOJ did note that it did not construe PRWORA as precluding non-citizens from receiving police, fire, ambulance, transportation (including paratransit), sanitation, and other similar services. But, unless overturned through litigation, the Attorney General’s action will mean that not-qualified non-citizens will be ineligible for any federal assistance previously designated as necessary for the protection of life or safety, including federally-funded community-level programs providing homelessness assistance, domestic violence assistance, food banks, and others previously excepted.

DOJ’s decision is particularly striking because it does not purport to be an interpretation of the 1996 law. It is simply a statement that DOJ does not want any services or benefits needed for the preservation of life or safety to be available to non-qualified non-citizens.

III. Restricting access to child care, energy assistance, and other benefits for qualified immigrants.

In December 2025, DOJ announced that it had concluded that all federal means-tested benefits, whether funded with mandatory or discretionary funds, should be considered federal means-tested public benefits. As a result, if implemented, qualified immigrants will be ineligible for such benefits for a five-year waiting period, subject to limited exceptions.¹⁸ If implemented, this will affect, among others, federal housing assistance, low-income energy assistance, and child care assistance provided under the Child Care and Development Block Grant.

IV. Restricting access to federal tax credits.

On November 20, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (DOT) announced it intended to issue regulations to “clarify” that the refunded portions of certain benefits – including the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Additional Child Tax Credit, the American Opportunity Tax Credit, and the Saver’s Match Credit – would be considered “public benefits” within the meaning of PRWORA, making not-qualified non-citizens ineligible to receive them. The announcement was in a press release entitled “Treasury Moves to Prevent Abuse of Refundable Tax Credit Benefits by Illegal Aliens” in connection with the announcement, Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent explained, “Under President Trump’s leadership we are enforcing the law and preventing illegal aliens from claiming tax benefits intended for American citizens.”¹⁹

This treatment of refundable portions of tax credits drew from a DOJ opinion,²⁰ which explained that DOJ had concluded that treating refundable portions of credits in this manner was the best reading of the 1996 law, even though no prior administration had counted such credits as public benefits and Congress had enacted legislation on multiple occasions specifying the circumstances in which immigrants could qualify for such tax benefits, including a provision relating to EITC eligibility in PRWORA.

The administration has not yet said how the Treasury Department’s proposed approach to refundable tax credits would interact with PRWORA restrictions affecting qualified non-citizens. Because eligibility for these tax credits is means-tested, it is possible the administration will contend that qualified non-citizens should face a five-year waiting period before being eligible to receive them. This and other questions may be addressed in the forthcoming rulemaking.

V. Barring mixed status families from public and subsidized housing.

For many decades, federal law has limited federal housing assistance to citizens and specified eligible immigrants. The listing of eligible immigrants is similar but not identical to the list of qualified non-citizens under PRWORA.²¹ Since 1995, federal rules have provided that if an individual is not a citizen or eligible immigrant, the eligible members of the household can receive prorated housing assistance, but no benefit would be provided for the ineligible immigrant. In February 2026, HUD proposed to overturn this policy.²² Under the proposed HUD rule, families could only be eligible for assistance if all resident family members were citizens or eligible immigrants; if one member of the family is not a citizen or eligible immigrant, the entire family would be ineligible.

Because the existing policy requires proration, a family with an ineligible member currently receives less housing assistance than a family of the same size with all members eligible. Nevertheless, describing the proposed rule, Secretary of HUD Scott Turner said, “Under President Trump’s leadership, the days of illegal aliens, ineligibles, and fraudsters gaming the system and riding the coattails of American taxpayers are over.”²³

VI. New public charge restrictions

While the reinterpretations of PRWORA requirements seek to limit immigrant eligibility for services and assistance, a separate administration initiative—reinterpreting public charge requirements—seems intended to deter the use of public benefits by families with immigrant members.

Under longstanding immigration law, certain individuals can be denied a visa or admission to the United States or adjustment to lawful permanent resident status if they are determined likely at any time to become a public charge.²⁴ Because the statute does not say what it means to be a public charge, federal officials have had to develop a working definition. The standard for determining public charge is important for two reasons. First, it has direct consequences for those seeking a visa, admission or adjustment of status. Second, the standard has potential consequences for a much larger group of immigrants and citizens who may fear that their use of public benefits could have consequences for them or a family member in the future.²⁵

Except in the first Trump administration, longstanding policy across administrations considered persons likely to become a public charge if they were likely to become 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 first Trump administration adopted regulations to significantly expand which programs could be considered in a public charge determination to include any receipt of cash assistance, SNAP benefits, housing assistance, Medicaid, as well as other specific factors, with limited exceptions.²⁶ The Biden administration reinstated the longstanding prior definition.²⁷

The second Trump administration has adopted an approach that goes far beyond that of the first Trump administration. In November 2025, the administration issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to repeal the standard in existing regulations and instead leave public charge determinations up to the subjective determinations of officials.²⁸ On July 20, 2026, the administration issued its final rule.²⁹ While the rule itself just repeals the standard in the 2022 rule, the preamble to this rule explains that Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) intent is that any means-tested public benefits that the applicant applied for or received after the effective date of the rule should be considered as part of the “totality of circumstances” in making public charge determinations.³⁰ DHS expressly refuses to provide a definition of federal means-tested public benefits, though it notes that these will include any benefits for which there is a means-test, including but not limited to Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, SNAP, housing assistance, Head Start and child care, school meals, WIC benefits, refundable tax credits, and others. Moreover, DHS explains that consideration should be given to any benefits received by the applicant’s family members if the applicant is legally obligated to support those family members and their receipt is based on the applicant’s income being below a certain threshold. Benefits received by a family member would also be considered if “the alien’s means of support stems from the receipt of means-tested public benefits by the family member.”³¹ DHS also notes that the scope extends to benefits provided under federal, state, territorial, Tribal and local programs.

DHS asserts that its approach effectuates the congressional statement of national policy expressed in PRWORA that “the availability of public benefits not constitute an incentive for immigration to the United States.”³² Citing PRWORA, the preamble states, “DHS has a statutory responsibility to remove incentives for immigration stemming from availability of public benefits and ensure aliens seeking to remain in the United States permanently do not become dependent on the public for their support.”³³ The preamble does not discuss the point that no prior administration since 1996, including the first Trump administration, construed this 1996 statement of national purpose to support the approach taken here. 

In its discussion, DHS expressly refuses to define “public charge” or explain how prior receipt of benefits should be weighed in determining if someone is likely to become a public charge. DHS explains that “DHS officers will consider the circumstances surrounding the receipt, the nature of the benefit and whether it is the types of benefit that alone or in combination with other benefits meets the alien’s basic needs, the recency, duration, and amount of receipt, the reason for the receipt and whether that reason has or is likely to persist, in the totality of the circumstances.”³⁴ DHS notes that it will be providing subregulatory guidance to officials, but  states that “DHS declines to attach specific weight to any particular factor because the public charge inadmissibility determination is a subjective, discretionary, and case-specific determination.”³⁵ 

The public charge rule does not make persons ineligible for benefits programs, but as a practical matter, the administration’s approach seems virtually certain to have substantial chilling effects on participation in programs, because of the broad range of benefits that would be considered, and because prospective applicants for  lawful permanent resident status will have no clarity on how any use of benefits by the applicant or the applicant’s family members could adversely affect a future application. Further adding to chilling effects, the preamble references a provision of law that states “Any alien who, within five years after the date of entry, has become a public charge from causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen since entry is deportable.”³⁶ And, the preamble notes that in the context of naturalization, DHS may evaluate whether the individual was admissible at the time of admission or adjustment of status, including whether they were inadmissible on public charge grounds at the time of becoming a lawful permanent resident.³⁷

The preamble cites multiple studies from prior experience pointing to the risk of very large chilling effects. While noting that a number of these studies estimate higher figures than DHS estimates, DHS estimates that its approach will result in an annual reduction of $13.05 billion in federal and state transfer payments that would be attributable to disenrollment or nonparticipation in Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, SNAP, TANF, SSI Federal Rental Assistance, and the WIC Program, with an estimated 1.3 million persons disenrolling or not enrolling.³⁸ The preamble explains that “the transfers estimated in this analysis relate predominantly to enrollment decisions made by those who are not subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility.”³⁹

In recent years, public charge denials have been low—averaging 65 per year between 2020-2024.⁴⁰ While denials may go up considerably under the administration’s envisioned approach, it seems clear that the largest effects of the public charge rule will result from  its chilling effects. It also seems clear that the administration is aware of such potential effects and has rejected any efforts to reduce such effects. Had the administration wanted to reduce chilling effects, it could have limited the benefits considered, provided a clear and discrete list of benefits that would be relevant to a public charge determination, explained exactly how benefit use would be considered, and stated that benefit use by other family members would not be part of the determination. The fact that none of these steps were taken despite the administration’s own estimates of chilling effects makes clear that the public charge initiative is best recognized as an attempt to discourage participation in all means-tested public benefits programs, very broadly defined, by immigrants and citizens in households with immigrant members.

Litigation challenges and current status of administration efforts

While the OBBBA provisions are being implemented, the legal impact of the federal actions reinterpreting PRWORA requirements has been limited to date, principally due to litigation. Attorneys General from 20 states and the District of Columbia filed a broad challenge to the HHS, ED, DOL, and DOJ restrictions.⁴¹ The district court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of the new restrictions in the jurisdictions participating in the litigation.⁴² In granting the preliminary injunction, the court held that it was likely to find that the adoption of the new approaches should have been done through notice and comment rulemaking, were arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law and that the DOJ action was likely to violate the Constitution’s Spending Clause. The Attorneys General subsequently added a claim against the November 2025 HUD policy statement. The case is awaiting a decision on the Attorneys General’s summary judgment motion. Federal agencies have not issued further guidance or directives for how the requirements should be implemented in the states not subject to the lawsuit.

In addition, the ACLU amended its complaint in ongoing litigation to challenge the application of public benefits restrictions to the Head Start Program. The district court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining application of the new restrictions to Head Start.⁴³

Going forward, the ability of the federal government to implement the new restrictions will depend on the outcome of the current litigation. If the restrictions ultimately are implemented, their impacts will go far beyond restricting access for unauthorized immigrants. Moreover, under PRWORA, states and local governments—though non-profit charitable organizations—are required to verify immigrant eligibility for federal public benefits, pursuant to regulations adopted by the DOJ.⁴⁴ Conspicuously, the federal government has not specified the verification requirements it would impose if courts allow these restrictions to go forward. Also, notably, PRWORA imposes restrictions on non-citizen eligibility for state and local public benefits, with a definition essentially identical to the federal public benefits description, and subject to a state’s authority to override the restrictions by affirmative state legislation.⁴⁵ But, also conspicuously, the federal government has not yet stated whether it would seek to impose its expanded definitions of federal public benefits to state and local public benefits.

It is unclear why the administration has not taken aggressive action to enforce the requirements in states not subject to the preliminary injunction. It is possible that as an administrative matter, the administration wants to implement the requirements uniformly after litigation is completed; it is also possible that the administration sees a litigation advantage in not having concrete evidence of the harms of implementation while the litigation remains pending.

Ultimately, though, it is clear that the administration’s goal is to take as broad as possible an approach to what counts as a public benefit and as narrow as possible an approach to any exceptions. It will not be surprising if these efforts are struck down by courts, because in each of these cases the administration has departed from the contemporaneous actions of the federal government interpreting and implementing the 1996 law, with the original actions not challenged or reversed across multiple administrations, including the first Trump administration. Still, what’s notable is the effort to make access to a broad range of benefits, services, and assistances as restrictive as possible for all non-citizens (and in some cases their family members), regardless of their immigration status.

Because the public charge rule was issued on July 20, 2026, there has not yet been litigation filed against it. There was extensive litigation challenging the 2019 rule, and there is strong reason to anticipate the 2026 rule will be challenged.

The potential effects of the administration’s efforts

As noted previously, while the OBBBA provisions are being or scheduled to be implemented, some of the administration’s other efforts have been enjoined by litigation and others are still at or prior to the proposed rule stage. But it is helpful to pull together the various actions to appreciate how they would affect particular groups of non-citizens. This is illustrative, and not a comprehensive list of every effect on every category of potentially affected persons. 

As to lawful permanent residents:

• OBBBA’s elimination of premium tax credits eligibility for people with incomes below 100 percent of poverty and ineligible for Medicaid due to immigration restrictions has the effect of making them ineligible for premium tax credits for a five-year waiting period unless they fall within the exception for refugees and asylees.
• Unless excepted, they will face a five-year waiting period before they become eligible for child care, energy assistance, housing assistance, and certain other federal means-tested programs funded with discretionary dollars under the new DOJ interpretation.
• They will become ineligible for housing assistance if residing with any ineligible immigrants if HUD makes its proposed rule final.
• If the Department of Treasury adopts a rule treating refundable tax credits as public benefits, they will face a five-year waiting period before being eligible.
• Under the public charge rule, they will be among the broader group of individuals concerned about seeking a range of public benefits due to fears that doing so could have adverse effects on their immigration status or the status of family members.
• If they reside with a not-qualified non-citizens, they will face the additional financial and other stresses that flow from the multiple new restrictions on access to benefits and services for those persons.

For refugees and asylees:

• The most significant effects are likely to come from the OBBBA restrictions, under which they become ineligible for Medicaid, SNAP and ACA premium tax credits unless and until they become lawful permanent residents, though refugees and asylees who are pregnant women and children can remain eligible if their state has elected to provide this coverage. Those needing to attain LPR status cannot do so until they have been in refugee or asylee status for a year, and how soon they can attain LPR status after that depends on how long the administration takes to process their cases.
• Refugees and asylees will not be affected by the expanded definition of federal public benefits or federal means-tested public benefits, because they are still considered “qualified” immigrants and remain exempt from the restrictions on federal means-tested benefits.
• As with other groups, refugees and asylees are likely to experience the chilling effects of the confusion and fear associated with a new public charge rule, and if they reside with not-qualified non-citizens, they will face the financial and other stresses resulting from restrictions on access to benefits and services for those persons.

For not-qualified non-citizens, including those with permission to reside in the United States, such as those with Temporary Protected Status, DACA recipients, and those in the country on non-immigrant visas:

• Under OBBBA, they will lose eligibility for premium tax credits if they were previously eligible based on having been lawfully present, having incomes below 100 percent of the poverty line, and having been ineligible for Medicaid because of immigration status.
• If DOJ’s decision to eliminate access to benefits and services needed to protect life or safety is implemented, they will be ineligible for services previously recognized as necessary to protect life or safety. This will include services such as assistance relating to child protection, adult protective services, or domestic violence; services for treatment of mental illness or substance abuse; short-term shelter or housing assistance for the homeless; soup kitchens and community food banks; medical and public health services, including treatment and prevention of diseases and injuries (though the statutory exception for testing and treatment of communicable diseases would remain in effect); and mental health, disability, or substance abuse assistance necessary to protect life or safety.
• If the administration’s expanded definitions of federal public benefits are fully implemented, not-qualified non-citizens will become ineligible for:
  • At least 13 HHS-funded programs, including the Title X Family Planning Program; Head Start; the Title IV–E Educational and Training Voucher Program; the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG); the Health Center Program; services under the Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services Block Grant; services under the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant; assistance through Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness Grant Program; Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics; Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Treatment, Prevention, and Recovery Support Services Programs administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration not otherwise specified; the Title IV–E Prevention Services Program; the Title IV–E Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program; Health Workforce Programs not otherwise listed; and Health Profession Education and Training Assistance (including grants, loans, scholarships, payments, and loan repayments).
  • Adult education, career and technical education, and preschool programs administered by ED so long as such benefits are not protected under Plyler as part of a basic public education.⁴⁶
  • All participant-level services in DOL-funded programs (if DOL proceeds with rulemaking consistent with its original statement).
  • All HUD-issued grants and extending applicability to any benefit or service provided to individuals, households or families, under such programs as Continuum of Care and Emergency Solutions Grants for homelessness services; HOME, HOME-ARP, and the Housing Trust Fund for affordable housing and rental assistance; housing assistance for people with HIV/AIDS; and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and CDBG-Disaster Relief for local community-development and disaster-recovery housing aid.
  • Refunded portions of at least the following refundable tax credits: the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Additional Child Tax Credit, the American Opportunity Tax Credit, and the Saver’s Match Credit.

As to citizens, an estimated 9.3 million households in the United States are mixed-status households, with at least one citizen and at least one non-citizen member; 37 million people reside in these households.⁴⁷ In addition, 90 percent of children of immigrants are U.S. citizens.⁴⁸

• Under OBBBA, citizen children will no longer be eligible for the Child Tax Credit unless they are residing with a parent with a Social Security number valid for employment.
• If HUD adopts its proposed rule, citizens will lose eligibility for housing assistance if they reside with one or more ineligible non-citizens.
• Citizens in mixed status households may be adversely affected if non-citizen members lose income, food assistance, medical care, child care assistance, access to education programs, access to mental health and substance use treatment, and an array of other forms of services and assistance.
• If refundable portions of tax credits are treated as public benefits, citizens, including citizen children, will be impacted by any restrictions on provision of refunds to non-citizen parents.
• Like others, citizens may become fearful that their own use of public benefits could have adverse effects on other household members. Parents may disenroll citizen children from public benefits programs, including Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance, Head Start, school meals, and WIC, due to fear that the child’s participation in the program could have an adverse effect on a parent seeking lawful permanent resident status.  

As these examples suggest, if fully implemented, the administration’s efforts would have broad effects extending not just to persons lacking permission to be in the United States, but across multiple programs affecting all non-citizens and citizens residing with non-citizen family members, including citizen children.

Discussion and conclusion: Making life harder for all families with immigrant members

It has long been recognized that “welfare for illegal aliens” is exceedingly unpopular. But, the Trump administration has routinely used this language to advance an agenda that goes far beyond what would typically be considered welfare and that often has little or nothing to do with benefits for “illegal aliens.”

Looking across the administration’s efforts, it is clear that the administration is seeking to restrict access to a broad range of assistance and services, not only for unauthorized persons, but also for multiple other groups of non-citizens and for children and other citizens living with non-citizen family members. By expanding what is considered a public benefit and seeking to seeking to impose five-year waiting periods on a broad range of means-tested benefits for qualified immigrants, the administration is upending eligibility frameworks that had been in place since the 1996 law was enacted. It is seeking to deny federally-assisted housing to all persons in families with ineligible immigrant members and actively discourage benefit use by citizens and non-citizens in families with immigrant members. It is seeking to discourage program participation by citizen children in order to discourage the use of benefits by children of immigrants. 

It is difficult to identify any articulable principle to explain the administration’s approach other than its deep hostility to immigration and immigrants. The original expressed intent of PRWORA provisions was to remove incentives for illegal immigration, but the restrictions the administration is seeking to implement go far beyond any credible argument that these are needed to remove incentives for such migration. Restricting access to a broader range of means-tested benefits for a five-year waiting period appears to be intended either to discourage legal immigration or to simply make life more difficult for the initial five years that such immigrants are in the country, seemingly seeking to encourage them to return to their country of origin. This cannot readily be understood as creating incentives for employment, because the administration is also seeking to withdraw eligibility across child care, health care, and refundable tax credits, all of which are recognized supports for work and the administration’s approach restricts assistance for both working and not-employed immigrants.

The administration’s approach may also have an important incidental effect—the repeated assertions that there has been extensive use of public benefits programs by “illegal aliens” likely has an impact in casting disrepute on the programs themselves. 

Ultimately, the courts will likely determine whether and to what extent the administration’s administrative efforts will succeed. Congress could, of course, enact legislative protections, though any such efforts will be subject to Presidential vetoes. A future Congress and President will need to reconsider what national policy should be. This will involve far more than a discussion of “welfare.” It will require rethinking the framework for which non-citizens are eligible for which federally-funded benefits and services, under what circumstances. It will include questions about access to early childhood education, domestic violence services, homelessness assistance, community health clinics, and the broad range of federally-funded services and it will necessitate considering what rules should be for different groups of immigrants. And, even if one is inclined to believe that the availability of certain benefits could create an incentive to migrate to the U.S., Congress will need to ask what policy goal is attained by denying non-citizens living in U.S. community the services needed for the protection of life and safety.

To date, courts have provided some, but by no means full, protection against some of these administration initiatives. But, only some states have opted to oppose these efforts, even though the initiatives have the potential to hurt citizens and non-citizens and impair the effectiveness of a broad range of public programs in all states. Going forward, it is important to recognize that initiatives described as targeting “welfare for illegal immigrants” often affect a much broader group of both citizens and non-citizens and have important chilling effects that ripple across families and communities.