Overview of the Proposed Rule
In November 2025, USCIS proposed rescinding the existing Public Charge regulations adopted in 2022 and replacing them with no clear regulatory standards at all, relying instead on future policy guidance and individual officer discretion. The proposal would eliminate long-standing definitions, remove guardrails on adjudicators, weaken the role of affidavits of support, and expand uncertainty about which public benefits may be considered in immigration decisions.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) strongly opposes this proposal because it is unsupported by evidence, legally flawed, harmful to families and communities, and inconsistent with decades of immigration law and administrative practice.
1. The Proposal Is Unsupported by Evidence and Will Cause Confusion
USCIS claims that removing the current rules will lead to fewer immigrants becoming dependent on public benefits. However, DHS provides no credible data, studies, or evidence to support this claim. The agency fails to explain:
- What “dependence” actually means
- Which benefits would count
- How benefits use today predicts future dependency
- Whether past public charge rules actually reduced benefit use
This lack of evidence violates basic administrative law requirements. Agencies must base major policy changes on reasoned analysis and data, not speculation. Ironically, DHS itself admits that rescinding the regulations will cause public confusion, leading many people—including U.S. citizens in mixed-status families—to avoid benefits they are legally entitled to receive, such as Medicaid, SNAP, and housing assistance. This “chilling effect” could amount to nearly $9 billion annually in foregone benefits, with even greater downstream costs to public health and economic stability.
2. The Rule Violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
The proposal fails core requirements of the APA in several ways:
a. It Overturns Decades of Precedent Without Justification
For over 25 years—since the 1999 INS Field Guidance and reaffirmed by the 2022 Final Rule—public charge has been narrowly defined as primary dependence on government cash assistance or long-term institutional care. This interpretation aligns with congressional intent, court decisions, and statutory structure. USCIS now seeks to discard this settled framework without explaining why it was wrong, and without offering a replacement standard for public review.
b. No Meaningful Opportunity for Public Comment
Despite being designated an economically significant rule, DHS allowed only 30 days for public comment—half the time recommended by Executive Order 12866 and the Administrative Conference of the United States. Given the complexity and high stakes, this truncated timeline
undermines democratic participation and informed policymaking.
c. No Consideration of Reasonable Alternatives
DHS did not consider amending or refining the existing regulations. Instead, it offered only one option: total rescission. This “all-or-nothing” approach is arbitrary and unlawful under long-standing administrative law principles.
3. Eliminating Definitions Will Lead to Arbitrary and Biased Decisions
The proposal intentionally removes clear definitions of “public charge,” “public benefit,” and other key terms, pushing policy decisions down to individual adjudicators.
This will result in:
- Inconsistent decisions across USCIS offices
- Greater risk of implicit bias and unequal treatment
- Unpredictable outcomes that applicants cannot plan around
- Increased RFEs, delays, denials, and litigation
USCIS suggests that future policy manuals and website guidance will fill the gap—but these materials are not legally binding, can be changed without notice, and provide no enforceable protections.
The result is a system that is unknowable in advance and unreviewable after the fact—precisely what the APA is designed to prevent.
4. The Proposal Harms Families, Children, and Public Health
DHS openly acknowledges that the rule will cause people to withdraw from benefits due to fear and confusion. The consequences are severe:
- Millions could disenroll from Medicaid or CHIP
- Hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizen children could lose healthcare
- Increased malnutrition, untreated illness, and ER usage
- Higher long-term costs for states, hospitals, and taxpayers
Yet DHS refuses to quantify these harms, claiming they are too difficult to measure—while still proceeding with the rule. This selective accounting renders the cost-benefit analysis deeply flawed and legally suspect.
5. Weakening the Affidavit of Support Undermines Congressional Intent
Congress strengthened the Affidavit of Support in 1996 specifically to ensure that immigrants would not become dependent on public assistance. The 2022 regulations correctly treat a sufficient affidavit as a strong positive factor.
The proposed rule removes this protection, suggesting that even a legally enforceable affidavit may carry little or no weight. This contradicts congressional intent and will lead to more denials even when a qualified sponsor stands ready to support the immigrant.
6. Proposed Changes to Public Charge Bonds Are Unnecessary and Punitive
Public charge bonds are an outdated relic rarely used in modern immigration law. DHS proposes expanding bond breaches to include any receipt of means-tested benefits, even when lawful and reimbursable under an affidavit of support.
This change is unnecessary, overly punitive, and administratively inefficient—especially given DHS’s own estimate that only about 10 people per year would be subject to these bond processes.
7. Removing Waivers and Exemptions Increases Fear and Instability
The proposal would remove regulations listing exemptions and waivers (e.g., for refugees, asylees, VAWA self-petitioners), relegating them to policy manuals. This deprives vulnerable populations of regulatory certainty, making lawful reliance on benefits precarious and reversible without public input.
Regulations exist precisely to prevent this kind of instability.
Conclusion: This Rule Should Not Be Finalized
AILA’s conclusion is unequivocal:
The USCIS proposal is legally defective, evidence-free, and socially harmful. It replaces clear law with fear, predictability with discretion, and transparency with opacity.
Rather than improving the public charge system, the proposal would:
- Increase arbitrary denials
- Harm U.S. citizen children and families
- Undermine public health and economic stability
- Violate administrative law principles
For these reasons, the rule must be opposed and withdrawn, and the 2022 Public Charge regulations should remain in place.
