Late on November 20 the Department of Homeland Security released a proposed rule that would rescind the Biden administration’s 2022 public-charge regulations and replace them with a broader, "more flexible" standard. Under current rules, only cash welfare and long-term institutional care count toward a finding that an applicant for admission or permanent residence is "likely to become a public charge." The Trump-era proposal would allow adjudicators to weigh non-cash benefits such as Medicaid, SNAP food assistance and housing vouchers—essentially restoring the 2019 criteria that courts blocked during Biden’s term.
DHS argues that narrower definitions created "perverse incentives" for abuse and limited officers’ discretion. If finalized, the change could affect adjustment-of-status applicants, non-immigrant extension requests and certain humanitarian categories. Business immigration attorneys warn that corporate transferees seeking green cards may face lengthier Requests for Evidence to document private health insurance and household assets. Processing times at high-volume service centers could climb unless USCIS resources expand.
![DHS moves to scrap 2022 public-charge rule, widen benefit scrutiny]()
The proposal opens a 30-day comment period through December 19. Advocacy groups supporting high-skilled immigration plan to press DHS to exempt employer-sponsored EB categories entirely, arguing that such applicants already pass labor-market tests and seldom use public benefits. Conversely, restrictionist think tanks praise the rule as a fiscal-responsibility measure.
Employers should audit pending green-card cases for potential benefit usage—particularly pregnancies covered by Medicaid or COVID-era nutrition aid— and consider supplemental affidavits of support. Mobility policies may also need revision to ensure private insurance coverage begins on day one of U.S. assignment to mitigate future public-charge risk.
Because the proposal would rescind existing regulations rather than merely amend them, litigation is virtually certain. Still, global-mobility teams should assume stricter scrutiny could take effect sometime in 2026 if DHS meets statutory review timelines.
DHS argues that narrower definitions created "perverse incentives" for abuse and limited officers’ discretion. If finalized, the change could affect adjustment-of-status applicants, non-immigrant extension requests and certain humanitarian categories. Business immigration attorneys warn that corporate transferees seeking green cards may face lengthier Requests for Evidence to document private health insurance and household assets. Processing times at high-volume service centers could climb unless USCIS resources expand.
The proposal opens a 30-day comment period through December 19. Advocacy groups supporting high-skilled immigration plan to press DHS to exempt employer-sponsored EB categories entirely, arguing that such applicants already pass labor-market tests and seldom use public benefits. Conversely, restrictionist think tanks praise the rule as a fiscal-responsibility measure.
Employers should audit pending green-card cases for potential benefit usage—particularly pregnancies covered by Medicaid or COVID-era nutrition aid— and consider supplemental affidavits of support. Mobility policies may also need revision to ensure private insurance coverage begins on day one of U.S. assignment to mitigate future public-charge risk.
Because the proposal would rescind existing regulations rather than merely amend them, litigation is virtually certain. Still, global-mobility teams should assume stricter scrutiny could take effect sometime in 2026 if DHS meets statutory review timelines.
