The Trump administration's expanded public charge rule officially took effect on September 18, 2026, fundamentally changing how U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) evaluates green card applicants' likelihood of becoming dependent on government assistance.
The rule applies to applications for admission made on or after that date and adjustment-of-status applications filed on or after September 18.
With multiple federal lawsuits already in motion and a revised Form I-485 now mandatory, the stakes for immigrants navigating the green card process have never been higher.
What Changed on September 18
The Department of Homeland Security rescinded the narrower public charge regulations adopted in 2022.
Under that prior framework,
only applicants deemed likely to become primarily dependent on cash aid for income maintenance or long-term care at government expense could be denied for public charge.
The new rule dramatically expands the scope of the inquiry.
Under the new rule, immigration officers must consider at least five factors when deciding whether an applicant is likely to become a public charge: the applicant's age; health; family status; assets, resources, and financial condition; and education and skills.
For benefits received on or after September 18, 2026, officers may consider an applicant's application for, approval for, or receipt of any means-tested public benefit, including programs such as Medicaid and SNAP.
Perhaps most controversially,
for the first time, a family member's use of these programs that they are entitled to — including a U.S. citizen child's use of public benefits — can count in a parent's public charge assessment, potentially negatively impacting their green card application.
The latest rule tells officials to take into account non-cash benefits, like food stamps, Medicaid, childcare subsidies, housing vouchers and Head Start, as opposed to just cash programs.
Importantly,
receipt of public benefits alone does not automatically result in a public charge finding; officers must evaluate the applicant's circumstances as a whole.
However, immigration advocates warn the rule's broad discretion creates an environment of unpredictability for applicants.
A Wave of Lawsuits
Days before the rule's effective date, a coordinated legal offensive was launched.
New York Attorney General Letitia James led a coalition of 21 other states and the District of Columbia in suing to halt the new Trump administration policy.
The cases, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, challenge the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act and argue that it unlawfully expands the public charge ground of inadmissibility while creating uncertainty that may discourage eligible immigrants and their family members from using public benefits.
Joining them are the attorneys general of California, Illinois, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, and the governor of Pennsylvania.
Attorney General James and the coalition argue that the new rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is arbitrary and capricious, exceeds DHS's statutory authority, and departs from the longstanding meaning of the public charge provision established by Congress.
In a separate action,
Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced a joint lawsuit at a City Hall press conference, flanked by officials from Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Santa Clara County, and King County, all of which are joining the legal challenge.
The cities argue the policy could increase costs for local governments and discourage eligible individuals from accessing public benefits.
Additionally,
the Legal Aid Society, Democracy Forward, and the Center for Constitutional Rights also filed a new lawsuit on September 18 asking a federal judge to throw out the rule.
This is not the first time AG James has mounted this fight.
When the Trump administration introduced a similar rule in 2020, Attorney General James successfully led a coalition in suing to block the measure, a ruling that was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The New Form I-485: No Room for Error
Alongside the rule change,
USCIS published a revised edition of Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (edition date: 09/18/26), revised to align with the recently announced Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility Final Rule.
Critically,
USCIS is providing no grace period for accepting the revised edition of Form I-485.
Beginning September 18, 2026, USCIS will immediately reject any submission using an older edition of Form I-485 — if you submit an outdated form on or after that date, your application will be returned.
Although most of the form remains unchanged, USCIS has significantly revised the public charge section and removed much of the detailed explanatory guidance that previously appeared in the Form I-485 instructions. Most of the updates are concentrated in Part 9, which covers public charge-related questions.
Who Is Affected — and Who Is Exempt
The rule applies to people applying for green cards. It can also apply to green card holders who leave the country for more than 180 days and then try to re-enter.
It does not apply to someone renewing a green card or submitting other immigration applications, such as applications for citizenship.
Exempt categories include asylees, refugees, VAWA self-petitioners, U and T visa holders, and special immigrant juveniles.
The public charge ground of inadmissibility applies to specified family-based and employment-based applicants.
For those who already filed, there is some reassurance:
Anyone with a pending green card application that was filed with USCIS before September 18, 2026, will be decided based on the prior, more favorable policy from 2022.
The "Chilling Effect" Concern
Experts and advocates warn the rule's greatest impact may extend far beyond those directly subject to the public charge test.
The administration estimates roughly 1.3 million people will disenroll from or forego enrolling in benefits programs and a $13 billion annual reduction in program expenditures, because eligible citizens and non-citizens will avoid benefits participation due to the rule.
Even before the prior rule's implementation during the first Trump term, news of the coming change caused immigrant families to disenroll from public benefits or never sign up.
While that rule's technical application was limited to a small number of lawfully present immigrants applying for green cards, its chilling effect was far broader, leading millions of immigrants and their family members to avoid seeking assistance and care they were legally eligible to receive.
What Applicants Should Do Now
For anyone preparing to file or considering filing Form I-485, several practical steps are essential:
- Use the correct form edition.
- Do not hastily disenroll from benefits.
- Understand that the Affidavit of Support has limits.
- Monitor the litigation. The lawsuits are progressing rapidly, and a court injunction could change the landscape at any time. Applicants filing around this period should check for updates before submitting their applications.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have questions about how the public charge rule affects your immigration case, consult with a qualified immigration attorney.