Skip to main content

DHS could weigh use of Medicaid, housing help in green card decisions

▶ Watch Video: Watch: Markwayne Mullin gets heated over questions on Trump immigration policies involving children

In a move that will place hundreds of thousands of green card applicants under broader scrutiny each year, the Trump administration is allowing immigration officers to consider whether some applicants have used taxpayer-funded benefits — including Medicaid, food stamps and housing assistance — when determining whether they qualify for permanent legal status.

The Department of Homeland Security is poised to rescind a 2022 Biden-era regulation narrowing how officers apply a long-standing “public charge” test — an immigration screening tool used to determine whether applicants are likely to rely on government support — according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials.

The change may directly affect hundreds of thousands of people applying for green cards from inside the U.S. each year. It could trigger a broader ripple effect if immigrant families avoid health care, food, or housing assistance — even when they or their U.S.-citizen children legally qualify — out of fear that tapping into those benefits could ultimately hurt their immigration cases.

What does the final rule change?

Under existing federal immigration law, some individuals applying for a visa, admission to the U.S. or green cards can be deemed inadmissible if the government determines they are likely “at any time” to become a public charge.

The Biden-era rule, issued in 2022, limited the benefits DHS could consider to primarily cash welfare payments meant to cover basic living expenses and long-term institutional care paid for by the federal government.

The new final rule restores the broader discretion USCIS had during the first Trump administration, so that officers can conduct case-by-case reviews that consider an applicant’s age, health, family status, assets, financial resources, education, skills and whether the person has received means-tested taxpayer-funded benefits.

Those benefits can include food stamps, Medicaid and even housing assistance, according to USCIS officials. 

The federal government “is reaffirming the requirement of self-reliance, protecting public resources and ending policies that encouraged dependency on the backs of hard-working American taxpayers,” USCIS Director Joseph B. Edlow told CBS News in a statement. “Under President Trump, USCIS is restoring the basic principle that immigrants must be able to support themselves.”

Who could be impacted?

The rule applies to noncitizens inside the U.S. applying to adjust their status to lawful permanent residence, plus noncitizens seeking admission to the United States as immigrants or nonimmigrants, unless they fall into categories exempted by Congress. Historically, the public charge test exempts some refugees, asylees and those in humanitarian categories, including Special Immigrant Juveniles, certain trafficking and crime victims, and Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petitioners.

In its November 2025 proposal, DHS estimated that roughly 588,000 adjustment-of-status applicants each year would be subject to public-charge review — a figure that does not include all people applying for visas abroad or seeking admission at the border.

Still, the department assessed that the broader impact could exceed formal assessments or practical denial. In that same proposal, DHS determined that changes to the public charge policy could create a “chilling effect,” leading about 950,000 people in immigrant households to disenroll from or forgo public benefits altogether.

USCIS officials told CBS News that benefits received by an applicant’s family members will not be treated as the applicant’s own, though officers may still consider them when assessing the applicant’s finances. For instance, those benefits may factor in if they suggest the applicant cannot financially support the household or if the benefits are helping to support the applicant.

When will the rule take effect? 

The rule is expected to be filed for public inspection Thursday, with its effective date slated for early next week. But USCIS will not begin applying the new public-charge framework for 60 days, giving the agency time to update forms, guidance and internal procedures, and pushing the operational date into September. 

For applications filed before the rule becomes operational, USCIS officials say they will only assess means-tested public benefits received on or after that date. In other words, benefits received before the program is operational will generally only be considered only if they included public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at the government’s expense.

Along with the final rule, USCIS plans to publish a revised Form I-485, the application used by people seeking to register permanent residence or adjust status. Older versions of the form postmarked or submitted electronically on or after the rule is operational will no longer be accepted.

How did we get here?

The public charge test has been enshrined in U.S. immigration law for generations, but the high-profile battle over which benefits should be considered has bubbled over in recent years.

Prior to the first Trump administration, DHS followed 1999 guidance that defined a public charge as someone “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence,” and officers generally focused on cash welfare and long-term government-funded institutional care instead of benefits like Medicaid, food stamps, or housing aid.

Under a 2019 final rule, the Trump administration moved to broaden the test, allowing officers to consider a wider range of public benefits – including SNAP, most Medicaid, and certain housing programs — to create a more detailed review of applicants’ income, health, credit, education, and household circumstances.

The 2019 filing prompted a wave of lawsuits, but the Supreme Court allowed the rule to take effect while litigation continued and DHS began applying the rule in February 2020. After President Biden took office, DHS stopped defending the rule, and ultimately, the Biden administration issued a new 2022 rule that largely returned DHS to its narrower 1999-style approach.

Despite drawn-out legal fights, formal public charge denials have been very rare. For instance, between fiscal years 2020 and 2024, DHS reported that public charge denials of adjustment-of-status applications ranged from 41 to 95 total, annually. 

During the period when the 2019 Trump rule was in effect, DHS identified just five cases of denials or notices of intent to deny based on the full public charge analysis, and those cases were later reopened or rescinded.

Based on these numbers alone, the chilling effect of the final rule on risk-averse families applying for status is very likely to outweigh any actual practical effect. 

What happens next?

The Trump administration has previously defended proposals for the new rule as a return to a stricter interpretation of self-sufficiency that has always been present in immigration law. Still, the latest step taken by the Trump administration is likely to draw scrutiny from immigration attorneys, state benefit agencies, health providers, and immigrant-rights groups. 

While the rule does not change exemptions established by Congress — USCIS says those categories will continue to be listed on Form I-485 and in updated Policy Manual guidance – questions remain about exactly which benefits will count and what data-sharing agreements the agency might use to verify benefits. It also remains to be seen how the agency will train officers nationwide to apply the updated rule in a consistent fashion.

Still, for immigrant and mixed-status families, there’s perhaps a more pressing calculation. The final rule could simply make food, health and housing assistance feel too risky on the tenuous path to permanent legal status in the United States.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated to reflect that although the new rule is expected to take effect early next week, USCIS will not begin applying the new public-charge framework for 60 days, giving the agency time to update forms, guidance and internal procedures, and pushing the operational date into September. 

Trump gets a much-needed South Carolina win and other takeaways from Tuesday’s elections

(CNN) — President Donald Trump demonstrated his might with Republican primary voters Tuesday in South Carolina, as CNN’s Decision Desk projected that Darline Graham — the sister of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham and the president’s pick in the state’s special Senate primary runoff — will claim the GOP nomination.Now favored to win a full term in November, Darline Graham is, in many ways, a senator of Trump’s own making. The president lobbied South Carolina’s governor to appoint her to fill the remaining months in her brother’s term after he died in July. Then, he privately and publicly pressed her to run for a full six-year term.And when it looked like her rival in the runoff, Rep. Ralph Norman, might win, Trump visited Myrtle Beach to rally Republican loyalists to Graham’s cause, as his super PAC, MAGA Inc., disclosed spending more than $827,000 to support Graham.Graham’s win is narrow — she led by just a few percentage points Tuesday evening — but symbolically significant for the president in a month full of political setbacks, with six of his endorsed picks losing Republican primaries.Trump’s preferred candidate in the Oklahoma governor’s race, former state Sen. Mike Mazzei, meanwhile, was locked in a close Republican primary runoff against state Attorney General Gentner Drummond as ballots were being counted Tuesday night.And in a low-turnout special election runoff in Georgia, Democrats filled a vacancy in the narrowly divided House.Here are takeaways from Tuesday’s elections in South Carolina, Oklahoma and Georgia:A badly needed win for TrumpDarline Graham took to the stage at her victory party Tuesday night and declared: “South Carolina is truly Trump country.”Unlike her brother, who was close to the late Sen. John McCain and built a reputation as a foreign policy hawk independent from Trump, Darline Graham’s political profile was tied entirely to the president.“Our victory would not have been possible without you, and we are truly grateful,” she said in a message directed at Trump.For Trump, the win was badly needed — a victory in one of his highest-risk interventions in Republican primaries this year, after a string of several losses this month and with midterm elections just over two months away. It could serve to remind Republican lawmakers who might be looking to distance themselves from an unpopular president of the potential political costs of being at odds with Trump.Norman acknowledged Trump’s role in the race’s outcome, telling his supporters Tuesday night that “the president got involved. He has that right.”“I never understood why he got in this race,” Norman said as some members of the crowd booed the president. “But it is what it is, and I’ll accept it.”Graham is now set to face Democratic nominee Annie Andrews, a pediatrician, in November. Andrews on Tuesday challenged Graham to at least three televised debates, saying in a statement that “no appointment, endorsement, or family connection entitles anyone to six years” in the Senate. Still, Graham is heavily favored to win the deep-red state in the general election.A senator of Trump’s makingTrump has endorsed a slew of candidates this year, but rarely has he put his own political capital on the line like he did in South Carolina.When Trump initially talked up Darline Graham to fill the seat of her late brother, and Gov. Henry McMaster complied, it seemed like a short-term gig. The seat was already on the ballot for a full six-year term in November, so she’d have been a placeholder for a few months, until South Carolina voters nominated and elected one of the state’s myriad experienced Republicans who had been waiting decades for a Senate vacancy.But Trump doubled down three days after she was sworn in, urging her on social media to seek a full term. And, days later, she announced she would do so.The president’s “complete and total endorsement” wasn’t enough to clear the field. After all, Darline Graham had no political experience, and her brother wasn’t exactly beloved among conservative voters in South Carolina: He’d earned just 57% of the vote in his primary two months earlier against a handful of relative unknowns.The results of the August 11 primary suggested she could be defeated in the runoff. She finished first, but with just shy of 33% of the vote.There were reasons to believe Trump’s influence might be limited. After all, his choice in South Carolina’s GOP primary for governor, Lt. Gov. Pam Evette, lost to state Attorney General Alan Wilson — who Trump also endorsed at the last minute when it was clear his preference was on course for defeat.The president did not have the luxury of the same face-saving tack here: Norman had endorsed and campaigned with former Gov. Nikki Haley as she ran against Trump for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.Graham’s inexperience was on display during a debate with Norman earlier this month, when she declined to answer a question about Taiwan and the South China Sea, saying that national security was “not my thing.”But Trump carried Graham over the finish line. He visited South Carolina on Friday, telling Republicans that he’d personally lobbied her to run for a full term. “Pretend, please, that I’m on the ballot,” he urged GOP voters.Another endorsement test in OklahomaAnother Trump-endorsed candidate, Mazzei, was locked in a tight race Tuesday night against Drummond in the hard-fought runoff for the Republican nomination for governor.The two are vying to take on Oklahoma House Minority Leader Cyndi Munson, the Democratic nominee, in the race to replace term-limited Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt in November.The race was another test of Trump’s influence — and there were significant questions over whether his endorsement would be enough for Mazzei, after Trump’s picks in Republican gubernatorial primaries in Georgia, Iowa and Minnesota all lost earlier this year.A key divide in the primary was a proposed $4 billion aluminum smelter at the Tulsa Port of Inola, estimated to bring about 1,000 jobs to the area. Trump touted the plant, claiming on Truth Social that it “will be one of the best projects ever conceived or built, not only in the Great State of Oklahoma, but in the United States, itself.” But, amid local concerns about pollution and damage to the livestock economy, Drummond has sued, asking a federal court to block the plant’s construction.Georgia Dems fill a House seatCNN projects that Democrat Everton Blair, a former Gwinnett County School Board chair, will win the special election for Georgia’s 13th District House seat vacated by the late Rep. David Scott’s death in April.But he won’t hold that seat for long.Blair, who will be the first out gay member of Congress from Georgia, defeated the longtime lawmaker’s daughter Marcye Scott in the special election runoff on Tuesday. He campaigned on a pledge to be a stronger opponent to Trump and advocate for a more progressive affordability agenda than both the late congressman and his daughter.However, Blair finished a distant third in the regular House primary earlier this year, so he won’t be on the ballot in November.State lawmaker Jasmine Clark is the Democratic nominee for a full two-year term in the deep-blue district in November. She did not run in the special election because under state law, she would have had to resign her seat in the Georgia House — costing Democrats a seat just as Republican Gov. Brian Kemp was launching an unsuccessful push for mid-decade redistricting.In the meantime, Blair’s win, and the special election of state Sen. Aisha Wahab in California last week, will help Democrats further narrow the already razor-thin GOP majority in the House.CNN’s Katie Doran and Adam Cancryn contributed to this report.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story