A new Trump administration policy allowing immigration officers to consider an applicant’s use of public benefits when evaluating green card applications took effect Friday, marking a significant shift in federal immigration enforcement.
The rule, implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), permits officials to deny permanent residency to immigrants who have received or are likely to need Medicaid, food stamps, tuition assistance, or free school lunch programs, among other government assistance. The policy applies to all green card applicants, including those already in the U.S. seeking to adjust their status.
DHS estimates the rule could reduce federal and state payments by $13 billion annually by discouraging up to 950,000 people from enrolling in or continuing to use safety-net programs. The agency stated in a policy document that the change aligns with the principle that noncitizens in the U.S. should be self-sufficient and not reliant on taxpayer-funded benefits. The rule cites Congress’s intent that immigrants not become a financial burden.
The policy reverses a 2022 Biden administration decision that limited immigration officers’ ability to weigh benefits received or expected when processing applications. Under the previous rule, officers were restricted from considering most forms of public assistance, making it easier for low-income applicants to qualify for permanent residency.
As of Friday, green card applicants must disclose whether they currently receive or anticipate needing social benefits, and immigration officers may use this information to determine eligibility. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reported that approximately 1.3 million green card applications were pending as of December 2025, though denial rates vary by visa category, with estimates ranging from 10% to 16%.
The rule’s implementation has drawn immediate legal challenges. New York, joined by 21 other states, the District of Columbia, and several cities, filed a lawsuit this week seeking to block the policy. The lawsuit argues that the rule fails to account for its broader impacts, including harm to mixed-status families and U.S. citizen children. New York Attorney General Letitia James called the policy an attempt to create a “chilling effect” on immigrants, stating, “Cruelty is the point.”
The legal challenge reflects broader political divisions over immigration policy. Supporters of the rule, including some conservative commentators, argue that it reinforces the principle that immigrants should not depend on government assistance. Critics, including progressive lawmakers and immigrant advocacy groups, contend that the policy unfairly penalizes low-income applicants and discourages use of essential safety-net programs.
The rule’s enforcement comes amid a broader crackdown on legal immigration pathways under the Trump administration, which has pursued multiple policies to restrict pathways to permanent residency and citizenship. The policy’s long-term effects remain uncertain, including its potential impact on federal and state benefit programs, as well as the experiences of immigrant families navigating the green card process.