Public Charge Inadmissibility Trump 2.0: Determinations During This Period

By Richard T. Herman, Immigration Attorney — Herman Legal GroupOctober 2025 | Family Immigration & Adjustment of Status Insights

Overview — Why This Matters in 2025

• On September 4, 2025, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a new Policy Memorandum reaffirming a strict interpretation of the public charge ground of inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(4).
• Although the Memo doesn’t reinstate the 2019 Trump-era “Wealth Test,” it marks a return to heightened scrutiny for applicants filing Form I-485 (Application to Adjust Status). The Trump administration’s 2019 regulation expanded the definition of public charge to include various noncash assistance programs, which significantly broadened the scope of review.
• USCIS officers are now reminded to “strictly adhere to the statutes and regulations” — meaning more detailed reviews of each immigrant’s age, health, education, assets, and financial support. Reinstatement of the Form I-944 would require applicants to provide detailed documentation of their financial status, health, and family composition.

Intro

The public charge rule has long been a central issue in U.S. immigration policy, affecting how green card and visa applicants are evaluated for admissibility. In 2019, the Trump administration issued a new public charge rule following an executive order, and the rule was published in the Federal Register. This rule expanded the definition of public charge, making it more difficult for immigrants to obtain green cards if they were deemed likely to use certain public benefits. The Trump administration issued several executive orders during this period, seeking to limit access to the immigration system and change how immigration benefits were granted.

Legal challenges quickly followed, with the district court and supreme court playing key roles in reviewing and ultimately vacating the rule. The chilling effect of the 2019 rule led many immigrants to avoid public benefits for fear of jeopardizing their immigration status.

In 2021, the Biden administration reversed the 2019 policy, introducing a new public charge rule that was announced via executive orders. The Department of Homeland Security and USCIS updated their guidance, and the state department also revised its procedures, including updates to the foreign affairs manual to guide consular officers on public charge considerations.

Public charge grounds and the public charge inadmissibility rule are based on specific provisions of U.S. immigration laws. The public charge inadmissibility determination applies to foreign nationals seeking lawful permanent resident status, and is assessed using a totality of the circumstances analysis as outlined in federal regulations.

What Is the “Public Charge” Rule?

Under the law, anyone applying for a visa, admission, or green card must show they’re not likely to become a public charge at any time. In the public charge inadmissibility determination, only cash benefits and certain public benefits are considered; non-cash benefits such as federal student financial aid are generally excluded.
USCIS must consider these factors: The public charge rule has been part of U.S. immigration law for over a century, originally introduced in the Immigration Act of 1882.

• Age and Health
• Family Status
• Assets and Financial Resources
• Education and Skills
• Affidavit of Support (Form I-864), when required

A sufficient affidavit of support is required to avoid a negative determination in the public charge inadmissibility process.

It’s a forward-looking, subjective determination based on the totality of circumstances — meaning no single factor controls the outcome. USCIS officers must provide a rationale for their public charge determinations, according to the 2022 rule.

What Changed Under Trump 2.0

The memo doesn’t introduce new forms or fees — but it re-emphasizes a stricter review culture. Key implications for 2025: Increased documentation and higher scrutiny would likely slow down the processing of applications for admission and adjustment of status.

• More RFEs and NOIDs: Expect requests for extra proof of income, assets, or I-864 accuracy.
• Closer Scrutiny of I-485 Answers: Incomplete or inconsistent answers can now trigger denials.
• Expanded Review: All supporting documents — medical exam (Form I-693), Affidavit of Support, tax returns — will be examined more intensely.

Officers will consider both negative factor and positive factors when reviewing your application, weighing circumstances such as public benefits use, health, and financial stability. Under the previous rule, month counts and the receipt of two benefits in a single month could trigger a finding of inadmissibility. The stricter review especially applies to certain visa categories, such as those seeking adjustment of status or changing from non-immigrant or student visas.

Expert Insight:

This is not a new rule — but a new mindset. USCIS is returning to a tight, paper-driven review style reminiscent of 2019, with discretion centralized in officers’ “opinion of DHS.”

Step 1: Check for Exemptions

Some immigrants are statutorily exempt from public charge review, including: Certain groups, such as refugees and asylees, are exempt from public charge determinations. The Biden administration’s 2022 public charge rule reverted to guidelines established in 1999, which limits consideration to cash assistance and long-term institutionalization. The 2022 public charge rule aims to mitigate chilling effects and encourage immigrant families to access eligible public benefits safely.

• Refugees and Asylees
• Special Immigrant Juveniles (SIJs)
• VAWA Self-Petitioners
• T and U Visa Holders
• Members of the armed forces and their families

Pregnant women who receive Medicaid during pregnancy and the 60-day postpartum period are not subject to public charge determinations. Exchange visitors, such as those on F-1 or J-1 visas, are generally excluded from public charge considerations, but must demonstrate limited use of public benefits when seeking extensions or changes of status.

Others — such as employment-based immigrants, EB-5 investors, religious workers, and Diversity Visa lottery winners — may be exempt from filing Form I-864, though still reviewed for financial stability.

Tip:

Check whether your client qualifies for any exemption before filing an Affidavit of Support.

Step 2: Evaluate Public Benefits History

USCIS considers only specific benefits that indicate dependency on the government:

• Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
• Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
• State/Local General Assistance Cash Programs
• Long-term institutionalization at government expense

Federal student financial aid for higher education, such as Pell grants and other educational support programs, is not considered in public charge determinations.

If the applicant personally received any of these benefits, document context and timing carefully. Family members’ benefits don’t count.

Step 3: Strengthen the Affidavit of Support (Form I-864)

A deficient Affidavit of Support is the most common reason for a public charge finding. A sufficient affidavit is required to support an application for LPR status, as the absence of a sufficient affidavit of support can result in a denial of adjustment to lawful permanent resident status.

The sponsor must prove income of at least 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines (100% for active-duty military). Immigrant families may avoid seeking public benefits due to fear of negative impacts on their immigration status, a situation referred to as the “chilling effect.” The Trump-era public charge changes led to decreased participation in public benefit programs among immigrant families.

Checklist for Compliance:

• Confirm tax filings and income match.
• Address any inconsistencies (e.g., marital filing status).
• Add joint or household sponsors if income falls short.
• Avoid questionable sources like unreported or cannabis-industry income.

Pro Tip:

The I-864 is a binding contract with the U.S. government. Sponsors remain financially liable until the immigrant becomes a citizen or earns 40 quarters of work credit.

Step 4: The Totality of the Circumstances

The totality of the circumstances analysis is central to the public charge inadmissibility determination.

A public charge determination depends on multiple factors reviewed together.

1. Family Status

Large households with few earners can raise concerns. However, strong family support and a stable income history can offset that.

2. Financial Resources

USCIS looks at income, savings, credit history, and debt. Strengthen weak areas before filing.

3. Health

Medical conditions requiring costly treatment can be negative factors. Provide proof of insurance or access to care.

4. Education & Skills

Submit proof of degrees, licenses, and work history. A current résumé helps show employability.

5. Age

Applicants in their prime working years (18–65) are viewed favorably.

Step 5: Perfect Your Form I-485

Under the new memo, every answer on Form I-485 matters. Focus on:

• Part 3: Clarify whether an I-864 is required or exempt.
• Part 9: Complete questions 57–66 carefully and consistently.
• Part 14: Use the “Additional Information” section for clarifications.

Use IRS Tax Return Transcripts, not copies of returns. Provide clear, concise evidence of income and assets.

RFEs & NOIDs Are Rising

Attorneys report a surge in Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) — often over minor issues.

Many stem from Lockbox scanning errors or missing pages on Form I-864/I-864A.

To avoid delays:

• Double-check page count and signatures.
• Use consistent income figures across forms.
• Respond to RFEs quickly and completely.

If you experience patterned issues, report them through the AILA “Report a Trend” Form.

Step 6: If Deemed a Public Charge — What Now?

Limited Waivers

Few waivers exist — mostly for witness/informant statuses (S visas) and certain aged, blind, or disabled legalization applicants.

Public Charge Bond

If USCIS finds inadmissibility but the applicant is otherwise eligible, it may invite posting of a Public Charge Bond (Form I-945). The bond remains in effect until USCIS cancels it via Form I-356.
Lawyers can proactively request bond consideration when responding to a NOID. Barriers to lawful permanent residency could be created for individuals deemed “more likely than not” to use a broad range of public benefits if the expanded rule is reinstated.

Comparing Law Firms That Can Help

Public charge determinations require strategic pre-filing planning and meticulous documentation. Here’s a look at top firms in this area: Immigrant advocates believe the chilling effect could exacerbate existing inequalities and health care disparities.

Recommendation:

For families or employers navigating Trump 2.0 policy shifts, start with a consultation at Herman Legal Group — Book Now to map a complete public charge defense plan.

Key Takeaways

• Memo Effective: Sept. 4, 2025 — reasserts strict adjudication standards.
• Not a new rule, but expect more scrutiny and subjective determinations.
• Prepare early: address finances, health, education, and support evidence.
• Form I-864 accuracy is critical. A weak affidavit can sink a case.
• Choose experienced representation. Immigration law is as much strategy as documentation.

History and Evolution of Public Charge Policies

The concept of “public charge” has been a cornerstone of U.S. immigration law for well over a century, shaping who may enter and remain in the country based on their likelihood of becoming dependent on government benefits. The origins of the public charge ground of inadmissibility date back to the Immigration Act of 1882, which first empowered immigration officers to deny entry to individuals “unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” Since then, the definition and enforcement of public charge inadmissibility have evolved significantly, reflecting shifting policy priorities across different administrations.

A major turning point came in 1999, when the Department of Justice issued field guidance clarifying that a public charge is someone “primarily dependent” on the federal government for subsistence, as demonstrated by the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense. This guidance specifically excluded non-cash public benefits—such as Medicaid, food stamps, and housing assistance—from consideration, providing much-needed clarity for immigrant families and immigration attorneys.

Trump 1.0

The landscape shifted dramatically under the Trump administration, which issued a final rule in August 2019 that expanded the types of public benefits considered in public charge determinations. For the first time, non-cash public benefits like Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), and certain housing programs were included in the public charge test.

The rule defined a public charge as any foreign national who received one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period. This expansion led to widespread concern and confusion, as many immigrant families feared that accessing essential services could jeopardize their path to permanent residence or a green card. The rule was challenged in multiple courts and ultimately vacated, but not before it had a chilling effect on participation in public benefits programs.

Biden

In response, the Biden administration moved to reverse these changes. On February 24, 2022, a proposed rule was published that largely restored the 1999 field guidance, narrowing the scope of the public charge ground of inadmissibility. The final public charge rule, effective December 23, 2022, reaffirmed that only cash assistance for income maintenance and government-funded long-term institutional care would be considered in public charge determinations. This return to the previous standard was intended to reduce fear and confusion among immigrant families and ensure that eligible individuals could access public benefits without jeopardizing their immigration status.

Throughout these changes, the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) have played central roles in interpreting and enforcing public charge inadmissibility determinations. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, USCIS officers must evaluate whether visa applicants or those seeking permanent residence are likely to become primarily dependent on certain government benefits in the future. The public charge test is not universal; it does not apply to all green card applicants, and certain groups—such as refugees, asylum seekers, and other humanitarian immigrants—are exempt by law.

As the second Trump administration signals renewed interest in revisiting public charge policies, the landscape remains dynamic. Proposed rule changes and policy memoranda can have far-reaching consequences for immigrant families, lawful permanent residents, and visa applicants. Staying informed about the latest developments in public charge law is essential for anyone navigating the U.S. immigration system. Trusted resources like the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, USCIS, and experienced immigration attorneys can provide up-to-date guidance on how public charge inadmissibility determinations may affect your case and your access to public benefits.

Resources for Further Reading

• USCIS Policy Manual: Public Charge
• USCIS Policy Memoranda — Public Charge Guidance (Sept. 4, 2025)
• USCIS Public Charge Resources and FAQ
• Murthy Law Firm Analysis: USCIS Reaffirms Public Charge Guidance (Sept. 5 2025)
• AILA Practice Pointer — Form I-485 Tips
• AILA Practice Pointer — I-864 Affidavit of Support Tips
• Herman Legal Group: Schedule Consultation

About Richard T. Herman

Richard T. Herman is an immigration attorney with over 30 years of experience helping families, professionals, and entrepreneurs secure legal status in the United States. He leads the Herman Legal Group, a nationally recognized firm serving clients in all 50 states and globally. He is co-author of Immigrant, Inc. and a frequent commentator on immigration policy and law.