The measure is raising concerns among immigrant families over healthcare, food assistance and permanent residency.

The Donald Trump administration will once again expand the scope of the so-called “public charge” rule starting September 18, 2026. The measure changes how immigration authorities will evaluate certain applications for permanent residency, commonly known as green cards, allowing them to consider a broader set of circumstances when determining whether a person could become dependent on public benefits in the future.

The change is also raising concerns among mixed-status families, in which one or more members may be U.S. citizens while others are navigating an immigration process. Experts who participated in an American Community Media press conference warned that the rule’s effects could extend beyond green card applicants, as families may become afraid to use healthcare and food assistance programs such as Medicaid, CHIP and SNAP.

What changes for green card applicants?

The public charge rule has been part of U.S. immigration law for more than a century and is intended to determine whether a person seeking admission to the country or permanent residency is likely to become primarily dependent on government assistance. What has changed over time is which factors are considered in that assessment.

Starting September 18, immigration authorities will return to a broader approach than the standard in place since 2022. Xiao Wang, CEO and co-founder of Boundless Immigration, explained during the conference that officials previously relied on more specific criteria to assess an applicant’s financial situation. Under the new rule, they will be able to review the applicant’s circumstances as a whole.

Factors that may be considered include the applicant’s age, health, family situation, financial resources and assets, education, skills and other elements related to their ability to support themselves. This means the assessment will no longer be limited to certain financial criteria or the use of specific benefits, but may instead take a broader view of the applicant’s personal circumstances.

The measure could primarily affect people applying for a green card from within the United States through adjustment of status, as well as those applying for permanent residency from abroad. These cases include family-based applications filed by spouses, parents and children of U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

However, certain categories are exempt by law, including refugees and asylees, certain special immigrant juveniles, trafficking survivors, some victims of crimes applying for T or U visas, and individuals protected under VAWA. The rule also does not apply to people who already hold a green card and are applying for U.S. citizenship through naturalization.

Another relevant factor is the filing date. According to the information presented during the conference, green card applications filed before September 18 will continue to be evaluated under the current rules, even if a decision is made later. For those who are prepared and eligible to file an application, submitting it before that date keeps the case under the more limited standard currently in effect.

Mixed-status families face fears over losing benefits

Although the rule applies to certain immigration processes, experts warned of a broader effect that could reach families who are not directly subject to it. The concern is that people may avoid using public programs because they fear doing so could hurt a future immigration application.

Mixed-status families are particularly vulnerable to this situation. Joan Alker, executive director of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, explained that one in four children in the United States lives in a mixed-status family. In these households, children may be U.S. citizens while one of their parents has a different immigration status.

That fear could lead parents to stop enrolling their children in healthcare or food assistance programs, even when those children are U.S. citizens and meet the eligibility requirements. During the first implementation of a broader version of the rule, the Urban Institute found that one in five adults in immigrant families with children had avoided using a public benefit for which they were eligible because they feared it could affect their immigration status. Among lower-income families, the share reached three in ten.

This effect may be particularly significant because, as Wang explained, benefits received by family members, including U.S. citizen children, generally are not considered benefits received by the green card applicant. In other words, families’ fears may ultimately be greater than the rule’s actual impact in certain cases.

For that reason, experts emphasized the importance of assessing each situation individually before giving up a benefit. Wang recommended consulting immigration attorneys or authorized nonprofit organizations that provide immigration assistance, since eligibility and potential consequences can vary depending on who receives the benefit, which program they use and what stage of the immigration process they are in.

Medicaid, CHIP and SNAP are already seeing declines

The concerns are emerging as healthcare and food assistance programs are already experiencing significant declines in participation.

Alker said that, as of June 2026, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) had 2.3 million fewer children enrolled compared with January 2025. The specialist clarified that this decline cannot be directly attributed to the new public charge rule because it has not yet taken effect, but said that fear among mixed-status families is one factor that could be contributing to the drop.

Medicaid and CHIP play a central role in children’s healthcare coverage in the United States. According to Alker, between 40% and 50% of children in the country have received health insurance through these programs. When a family loses coverage, it can become more difficult to access medical checkups, preventive care and medications. In the case of common childhood conditions such as asthma, a lack of early care can eventually lead to emergency situations and higher costs for families.

The impact also extends to food assistance. Dr. Giridhar Malia, a public health physician and Senior Policy Officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, explained that SNAP provides food assistance to approximately 37 million people in the United States, about four in ten of whom are children. U.S. citizens can qualify for the program, while permanent residents must meet certain conditions, including a five-year waiting period. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for SNAP.

During the first implementation of the public charge rule, more than 700,000 children from mixed-status families lost SNAP benefits over a two-year period, according to Malia. Overall, he estimated that the earlier version of the rule may have been associated with the loss of SNAP benefits for nearly two million people.

SNAP participation is also declining. Malia said national data show a reduction of 4.5 million participants over the past nine months, including approximately 1.5 million children. He linked the decline to changes in program conditions, new administrative requirements and other modifications implemented by the administration.

For families, losing SNAP can have additional consequences. Participation in the program can allow children to automatically qualify for free or reduced-price school meals. When a family stops receiving SNAP, children may lose that automatic eligibility and have to provide additional documentation to demonstrate that they meet the requirements.

Experts agree that the impact of the new rule will not be measured solely by the number of green card applications evaluated under the new standard. It will also be important to monitor how many families stop using programs they are entitled to because they fear immigration consequences.

The rule is scheduled to take effect on September 18, 2026. In the meantime, the organizations and experts who participated in the conference recommend that families avoid making decisions based solely on rumors or fear and instead consult immigration professionals or authorized organizations about their specific circumstances. The challenge will be distinguishing which benefits could have real consequences for a residency application and which benefits belong to family members who are not the applicants.