Public Charge Assessments
The Trump administration has focused on public charge as a tool to restrict legal immigration, implementing a policy on January 21, 2026, to suspend issuance of immigrant visas to applicants from 75 countries whose nationals the administration said were likely to apply for public assistance in the U.S. On August 22, 2026, a federal judge in New York vacated the policy, stating in Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) v. Rubio No. 1:26-cv-00858 (S.D.N.Y.), that it was “contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority”. That is welcome news for the immigrant visa applicants from those countries. However, it does not mean public charge is no longer a tool in the administration’s toolbox.
Consular officers adjudicating visas overseas and USCIS officers adjudicating adjustments of status in the U.S. are instructed to consider the public charge ground of inadmissibility in INA 212(a)(4). While this was previously primarily an issue for immigrant visa cases and adjustments of status, it did apply to nonimmigrant cases as well, though it was rarely used. However, the focus has changed, and adjudicators have been directed to consider public charge in every case.
On November 6, 2025, before the 75-country immigrant visa suspension was implemented, the Department of State had directed consular officers to fully vet applicants from all countries for all categories of nonimmigrant or immigrant visas for the likelihood of seeking public benefits in the U.S., broadening public charge assessments. More recently, on August 18, 2026, USCIS released a Policy Alert announcing that USCIS will broaden the types of benefits it considers when making public charge determinations. The new policy will go into effect on September 18, 2026. The recent decision in CLINIC v. Rubio vacating the 75-country immigrant visa suspension policy does not affect the Department of State’s or USCIS’s broad approach to public charge.
According to the USCIS policy alert:
When applying this guidance, with respect to means-tested public benefits the alien received before September 18, 2026, USCIS officers only consider the alien’s receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense. With respect to means-tested public benefits the alien received on or after September 18, 2026, USCIS officers consider the alien’s receipt of any and all such benefits. USCIS will review all relevant evidence in an alien’s record and make case-by-case decisions in the totality of the alien’s circumstance.
Along with this policy alert, USCIS will publish a new version of Form I-485, edition date 09/18/26. Effective September 18, USCIS will reject the 01/20/25 edition of the form and will only accept the 09/18/26 version, which has been revised to align with the Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility rule issued by the Department of Homeland Security on July 20, 2026.
Based on the November 6, 2026, Department of State instructions sent to consular officers overseas, an unofficial copy of which was made public in CLINIC v. Rubio, adjudicators must consider all aspects of the case and determine whether the applicant’s circumstances, assessed in their totality, suggest that he is more likely than not to become a public charge at any time. At a minimum, they must consider following factors related to the applicant: age, health, family status, assets, resources, and financial status, education and skills, any current or past receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense.
On August 25, a State Department spokesperson announced a pause on immigrant visa appointments for applicants worldwide, and a global training initiative, related to public charge, at all U.S. embassies and consulates. This appears to be a response to the decision in CLINIC v. Rubio.
As people applying for immigration benefits both in the U.S. and overseas consider their options, they should keep public charge issues in mind and continue to watch how the U.S. courts deal with this issue and how the Department of State and USCIS respond.
