The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is set to implement a new regulatory rule that could significantly restrict access to green cards for hundreds of thousands of immigrants by expanding the scope of the “public charge” ground for inadmissibility. The rule, scheduled to take effect this Friday, allows immigration officials to deny green cards based on the applicant or their family members’ potential future use of public benefits such as Medicaid, food stamps, and housing assistance.

The public charge provision, which has existed in U.S. immigration law since 1882, has traditionally been used sparingly and mainly applied to those receiving direct cash aid. However, this latest rule broadens the definition considerably by including a wider array of noncash benefits and granting immigration officers broad discretion to assess whether an applicant might ever need public support. Unlike previous policies, the rule permits officials to consider public benefits received not only by the applicant but also by family members, including U.S. citizen children.

DHS estimates that this rule could lead to a reduction in federal and state benefit expenditures by approximately $13 billion annually, primarily due to families choosing to forgo public assistance out of fear of jeopardizing their immigration status. However, experts warn that the broader impact will fall heavily on immigrant communities, including many with U.S. citizen children who rely on programs like Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). These programs cover around 38 percent of American children as of 2024.

Critics say the rule’s expansive criteria and lack of clear standards will make challenges difficult for applicants, as decisions rest largely on officers’ subjective judgments. The Migration Policy Institute has previously projected that earlier versions of such policies could have put up to 69 percent of recent green card recipients at risk of denial. Given the wider discretion allowed under the new regulation and the inclusion of family members’ benefit use, the number of affected individuals may be even greater.

The rule’s implementation is expected to disproportionately affect women, children, and elderly immigrants and may skew legal immigration preferences toward individuals from European countries over those from other regions. Additionally, fears surrounding the policy have already led many eligible immigrants to withdraw from or avoid benefit programs. A recent analysis by a health research organization estimated that up to four million people could disenroll from programs like Medicaid and CHIP as a result, including hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizen children.

Opposition to the rule is widespread. Dozens of state and local governments have filed lawsuits seeking to block its enforcement, arguing that the policy will harm public health and strain local resources. Meanwhile, DHS acknowledges the ripple effects that the policy will have on hospitals, nonprofit health providers, pharmacies, grocery stores, and food producers, potentially resulting in reduced revenue and increased uncompensated care.

With litigation expected to proceed slowly, some hope that Congress may intervene. Lawmakers have the option to use the Congressional Review Act to prevent the rule from taking effect. If legislative action fails, the courts could play a critical role in determining the rule’s fate. The evolving public charge regulation marks one of the most significant shifts in immigration policy in recent years, with implications for the health and well-being of immigrant families across the United States.