Understanding the Public Charge Rule: What Public Benefits May or May Not Impact Your Immigration Case
Angelica Rice • July 3, 2025
When applying for a green card or seeking admission into the United States, one of the legal hurdles many applicants may face is the public charge ground of inadmissibility. This test evaluates whether someone is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for support.
But what exactly does that mean—and what types of public benefits can trigger this issue?
In this article, we’ll break down what “public charge” really means, who is affected, what types of public benefits are considered, and what immigrants should be mindful of when making decisions about public programs like Medi-Cal and Medicaid.
What Is the Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility?
The public charge rule applies to individuals applying for a visa, green card (adjustment of status), or entry into the U.S., unless they fall into an exempt category. Under this rule, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must determine whether the applicant is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. This typically refers to receiving:
- Public cash assistance for income maintenance (such as SSI or TANF), or
- Long-term institutional care at government expense.
This determination is based on the "totality of circumstances," including age, health, financial resources, education, skills, and whether a sponsor has submitted a valid Affidavit of Support.
Who Is Exempt from the Public Charge Rule?
Many categories of immigrants are exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility. These include:
- Asylees and refugees
- Special immigrant juveniles
- Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petitioners
- T and U visa applicants
- Temporary Protected Status (TPS) applicants
Importantly, even if someone later adjusts status through a different pathway that is subject to public charge, any benefits they received while in an exempt category will not be held against them.
What Public Benefits Are Not Considered in the Public Charge Test?
It is a common and harmful myth that using any public benefit will jeopardize your immigration status. In fact, most non-cash benefits do not count against you in a public charge determination. According to USCIS and DHS guidance, the following types of assistance (current as of July 1, 2025) are not considered:
Health-Related Benefits
- Medi-Cal/Medicaid, except for long-term institutional care
- Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
- Health insurance through the ACA Marketplace, including subsidies
- COVID-19 testing, vaccines, and treatment
- Community health services, crisis counseling, and short-term shelters
Food and Nutrition
- SNAP (Food Stamps)
- WIC
- School meal programs
- Food banks and emergency food assistance
Housing and Energy
- Emergency shelter
- Rental assistance (e.g., McKinney-Vento programs)
- Energy assistance (e.g., LIHEAP)
Education and Childcare
- Public schooling
- Head Start
- Childcare subsidies (e.g., CCDF)
- Educational grants and scholarships
Federal Cash and Tax Benefits
- Earned income tax credit (EITC)
- Child Tax Credit (CTC)
- Stimulus checks
- Unemployment insurance
- Social Security and veteran’s benefits
- Disaster and pandemic-related cash aid
In short, just because a benefit is public or government-funded doesn’t automatically make it count against you.
A Word of Caution About Medi-Cal and Medicaid, in Particular
As of today (07/01/2025), standard use of Medi-Cal (California’s version of Medicaid) or Medicaid for most health-related services is not considered in a public charge determination. This includes preventative care, emergency services, pregnancy-related services, and short-term care.
However, if Medicaid is used for long-term institutionalization, such as in a nursing home or psychiatric facility, that does count under the public charge test.
Despite current guidance, we are seeing political shifts and changes in tone from the current administration that suggest public charge policies may become more restrictive in the future. This includes renewed interest in expanding the types of public benefits that may be considered, particularly around medical assistance.
For that reason, we generally recommend that individuals who are applying for adjustment of status, or who may be subject to the public charge ground in the future, avoid enrolling in Medi-Cal or Medicaid at this time, unless absolutely necessary.
Final Thoughts
Immigration law is complex, and the rules surrounding public charge can feel confusing or even frightening. But it’s important to understand that using most public benefits—especially for food, education, and healthcare—will not automatically jeopardize your green card or visa application.
Still, because policy can change quickly, we urge individuals to consult with an immigration attorney before applying for any public assistance—especially healthcare programs like Medi-Cal or Medicaid.
If you have questions or concerns about how public benefits might impact your immigration case, our office is here to help. We are committed to providing up-to-date, personalized guidance to keep your immigration journey on track.
Disclaimer
The information provided herein is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every immigration case is unique, and the application of the public charge rule may vary depending on your specific situation. If you believe this topic may apply to you or you need individualized legal guidance, we encourage you to contact one of our highly-qualified legal professionals for a consultation and assistance tailored to your circumstances.
Resources:
- USCIS Public Charge Resources
- ILRC Medi-Cal and Public Charge Alert (2024)
- California Medi-Cal Immigrant Eligibility FAQ
This blog is not intended to be legal advice and nothing here should be construed as establishing an attorney client relationship. Please schedule a consultation with an immigration attorney before acting on any information read here.
Angelica Rice
Similar Posts
In January 2025, the U.S. Congress passed the Laken Riley Act , marking a significant shift in immigration enforcement policy. The Act requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain certain non-U.S. nationals who have been arrested for theft-related offenses such as burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. Under this Act, the Department of Homeland Security must detain an individual who: (1) is unlawfully present in the United States or did not possess the necessary documents when applying for admission; and (2) has been charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admits to having committed acts that constitute the essential elements of burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. The Act also authorizes states to sue the federal government for decisions or alleged failures related to immigration enforcement. It authorizes state governments to sue for injunctive relief over certain immigration-related decisions or alleged failures by the federal government if the decision or failure caused the state or its residents harm, including financial harm of more than $100. Specifically, the state government may sue the federal government over a: Decision to release a non-U.S. national from custody; Failure to fulfill requirements relating to inspecting individuals seeking admission into the United States, including requirements related to asylum interviews; Failure to fulfill a requirement to stop issuing visas to nationals of a country that unreasonably denies or delays acceptance of nationals of that country; Violation of limitations on immigration parole, such as the requirement that parole be granted only on a case-by-case basis; or Failure to detain an individual who has been ordered removed from the United States. The Act's stringent detention requirements may lead to increased fear and uncertainty within immigrant communities. Individuals who are merely accused of certain crimes could face mandatory detention. The Act may also affect legal immigration processes. Increased detention and deportation efforts could strain resources, potentially leading to delays in processing visas and asylum applications. Given the evolving legal landscape: Stay Informed and/or Seek Legal Counsel - Consult with your immigration attorney to understand how new laws and policies may affect your situation and if you or someone you know is facing immigration-related legal issues. Know Your Rights - Familiarize yourself with your legal rights, especially concerning interactions with law enforcement and immigration authorities. Community Engagement - Participate in community organizations that provide support and resources for immigrants, fostering a network of assistance and advocacy. If you have any questions or would like to consult with an experienced immigration attorney, contact our office to schedule a consultation.
In a renewed wave of enforcement, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has started sending formal alerts to certain F-1 students participating in Optional Practical Training (OPT), flagging that their records reflect over 90 days without any reported employment. These students have been advised to update their employment status in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) within 15 days. Failure to take timely corrective action may lead to the termination of the student's SEVIS record, effectively marking them as out of status, and may ultimately trigger removal proceedings. The notices are intended as a warning that students who do not comply with OPT reporting obligations are at risk of serious immigration consequences. Understanding OPT and Its Unemployment Limits Optional Practical Training (commonly referred to as “OPT”) is a work authorization benefit that allows eligible F-1 international students to gain hands-on experience in their field of study. Students may apply for pre-completion OPT (while still in school) or post-completion OPT (after graduation), typically for up to 12 months. Those with degrees in qualifying STEM fields may apply for an additional 24-month STEM OPT extension, giving them a total of 36 months of work authorization in the U.S. To maintain valid F-1 status while on OPT, students must remain actively employed in a position related to their field of study. The amount of time a student may remain in the United States while on OPT without being properly employed is capped at: 90 days during the standard 12-month post-completion OPT, and 150 days for those on the STEM OPT extension, which includes any days of unemployment accrued during the initial OPT period. These unemployment limits are cumulative and enforced strictly through SEVIS monitoring. What Should F-1 Students Do? If you are an F-1 student on OPT or STEM OPT and receive a warning or are unsure about your compliance status, act quickly: Contact your Designated School Official (DSO) immediately to review and, if necessary, update your SEVIS record. Ensure all employment is properly documented and reported through your school’s international office. Do not ignore warning notices, as failure to respond may lead to SEVIS termination and potentially the initiation of removal proceedings. It is also advisable to consult with a qualified immigration attorney to explore available options and understand how enforcement actions may affect your status or future immigration plans. If you received a notice or have questions about your F-1 status, our attorneys are here to help you take the right steps to protect your future in the United States. Contact us today to schedule a consultation.
In recent months, the U.S. government has intensified its vetting procedures for individuals seeking entry into the United States, whether through visa applications abroad or inspection at ports of entry. This shift, prioritized by the current administration, is having a noticeable impact on immigrants, visa holders, and even lawful permanent residents (LPRs). At U.S. consulates worldwide, applicants are experiencing increased delays , often being placed into administrative processing under Section 221(g) or referred for Security Advisory Opinions (SAOs) , which can significantly prolong visa issuance. Officers are now engaging in deeper reviews of applicants' backgrounds, including their t ravel histories, social media accounts, and foreign ties . This scrutiny applies to a wide range of visa categories, from visitor visas to employment-based petitions. Importantly, officers are exercising broader discretion when deciding who qualifies for a visa, making the process more unpredictable, even for applicants with strong cases. This enhanced vetting does not end at the consulate. Individuals entering the U.S. — even those with valid visas or green cards — are increasingly subject to prolonged secondary inspections by Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Officers may ask detailed questions about prior immigration history, travel patterns, and social media activity. In some cases, travelers are asked to provide access to their electronic devices for further inspection. There are also growing reports of travelers being referred to deferred inspection or even issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) for removal proceedings, despite previously lawful entries. While some of these practices have existed in the past, the current administration has formalized and expanded them. Experts warn that additional travel restrictions or targeted bans could also emerge as part of the administration’s enforcement priorities. For employment-based applicants, these delays and complications can severely impact U.S. businesses and foreign nationals who contribute critical skills to the U.S. economy. It is more important than ever to be well-prepared before attending a visa interview or traveling internationally. Understanding your rights and preparing thoroughly can help you navigate this uncertain landscape. At Santos Lloyd Law Firm, P.C. , our immigration attorneys are ready to guide you through this evolving process and ensure you are informed, supported, and protected. Please contact us if you have questions or need assistance.
In 2025, the immigration landscape continues to shift under the weight of national security concerns, ushered in by Executive Order “ Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats. ” This directive tasks federal agencies—including the U.S. Department of State—with implementing enhanced screening and vetting protocols for all foreign nationals seeking visas or other immigration benefits. The result? A dramatically intensified vetting process, along with mounting concerns from immigrants, attorneys, and civil liberties advocates alike. Traditionally, airport security focused on verifying travel documents and screening for prohibited items, while consular officers assessed the legitimacy of visa petitions and the admissibility of applicants. Extreme vetting, however, represents a significant shift toward a far more invasive and comprehensive investigative process. It now includes detailed background checks, biometric verification, digital forensics, and expansive scrutiny of an applicant’s online presence and criminal or financial records. Since President Trump’s second term began in January 2025, the implementation of extreme vetting has expanded rapidly. Today, border screenings go far beyond routine document checks, encompassing a full-scale evaluation of a traveler’s digital life. This pivot reflects the administration’s intensified focus on national security, but it has also triggered urgent discussions about privacy, due process, and the fairness of modern immigration enforcement. At U.S. ports of entry—especially airports—noncitizens are now subject to rigorous and invasive procedures, including: Inspection of cell phones, laptops, and other devices (including deleted content) Review of social media activity on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter) Biometric scanning, including fingerprinting and facial recognition These measures are no longer confined to travelers from high-risk countries. In practice, extreme vetting applies broadly across all nationalities, and increasingly affects lawful permanent residents as well. For noncitizens, this new landscape introduces a heightened level of uncertainty and vulnerability. Delays at U.S. consulates for visa issuance or renewal are becoming routine. Travelers must now be acutely aware of these changes, and those attending consular interviews or seeking visa renewals should be prepared to provide additional documentation verifying their maintenance of status, compliance with visa conditions, and the bona fide nature of their visa applications. It is critical to organize supporting materials in advance and be ready to answer questions about employment, education, travel history, and online activity. As the U.S. government continues to expand its use of data-driven risk assessment tools, travelers must adapt to a new normal, one where preparation is essential to navigating the immigration system without disruption.
It’s no secret that the U.S. immigration system has faced increased scrutiny and change in recent months. From evolving policies to headlines filled with uncertainty, it’s understandable that many individuals are left wondering: Is this still the right time to pursue a future in the United States? The answer is yes—and here’s why. Despite the shifting political landscape, the core structure of U.S. immigration law remains firmly in place. While the process may appear more complex or demanding than it once was, the legal pathways to live, work, and thrive in the United States are still open and accessible to those who take the proper steps. What often gets lost in the conversation is that the United States remains a country built on innovation, creativity, and resilience. It continues to attract global talent, entrepreneurs, artists, and professionals from all walks of life. Whether you are launching a business, advancing your career, or seeking a better life for your family, the United States offers unparalleled opportunities to those who are prepared and determined. Much of what makes the United States a global economic and technological leader today is the direct result of contributions made by immigrants. Nearly half of the current Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. Immigrant entrepreneurs have long been an essential part of America’s economic success story. Some of the largest and most recognizable American companies were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants. This includes household names such as Apple and Costco. Moderna, the pharmaceutical company and vaccine producer, was founded by a Canadian-born stem cell biologist, Derrick J. Rossi, whose parents themselves emigrated from Malta. These success stories are not outliers; they are part of a broader pattern that reflects the drive, innovation, and resilience that immigrants bring to the country. The United States also offers one of the most dynamic and diverse economies in the world. It is a place where hard work, fresh ideas, and entrepreneurial vision are rewarded. For creative professionals, business leaders, and investors, the United States provides a unique platform to grow, connect, and gain global influence. Its competitive marketplace, access to capital, and culture of innovation create unmatched opportunities for those ready to seize them. While the immigration process requires careful planning, that process is far from impossible. Indeed, having strong legal guidance is one of the most effective advantages an applicant can possess. Immigration law is complex, and each case must be evaluated individually. A clear, strategic plan tailored to your background and goals can significantly improve your chances of success. What may feel like a hurdle at first glance is often navigable with solid preparation and documentation. At our immigration law firm, we have had the privilege of assisting individuals from all over the world as they navigate these complexities. Time and again, we have witnessed how determination, careful preparation, and experienced legal counsel can turn uncertainty into opportunity and help transform a vision for the future into reality. If you have been uncertain about whether to move forward, let this be your sign to take the next step. The United States is still a land of possibilities. If you are ready to take that step, now is the time to act. Let us build your path forward together.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has announced the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for nationals from Honduras, Nicaragua, Nepal, Haiti, and Cameroon. These longstanding protections are set to expire, putting many individuals at risk of deportation.
For individuals applying under the O-1A or EB-1A categories , both reserved for professionals with extraordinary ability, letters of recommendation are a critical part of the petition. These expert testimonial letters offer valuable insight into your accomplishments, reputation, and influence within your field. When written properly, they help demonstrate that you truly stand out as someone who has risen to the very top of your profession. Many petitions submitted by highly accomplished individuals fall short because the recommendation letters are vague, overly personal, or fail to clearly explain why the applicant meets the legal standard of extraordinary ability. That is why taking the time to prepare your recommenders effectively is not just helpful. It is essential to build a strong and persuasive case. First, it is important to help your recommenders understand the purpose of the letter . This is not a casual reference or character recommendation. It is a formal declaration to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that you possess extraordinary ability in your area of expertise. The letter must describe your achievements in concrete terms and explain why your work has had a significant impact and recognition within your field. Many professionals, no matter how accomplished, are unfamiliar with the specific requirements of the O-1A and EB-1A categories. It is helpful to provide them with a short explanation of what is needed, and in some cases, a sample or outline to guide them. Selecting the right recommenders is just as critical as the content of the letters themselves. While USCIS gives greater weight to letters from independent experts, independence should not be confused with distance. The ideal recommender is someone who knows your work well and can provide specific and credible insight into your contributions, impact, and reputation in the field. A letter from someone who barely knows you, or one that focuses more on the recommender’s own accomplishments than yours, is unlikely to carry much weight with USCIS. A common mistake is submitting letters that read more like summaries of the recommender’s resume than a meaningful evaluation of your achievements. While a brief introduction of the recommender’s qualifications is important to establish credibility, the focus must remain squarely on you , your work, your innovation, and the ways in which your impact is considered extraordinary. The strongest letters go beyond general praise. They include clear and detailed examples of how your contributions have influenced others in your field or led to measurable outcomes. To make the letter as accurate and persuasive as possible, you should provide your recommenders with a summary of your most important professional milestones. This might include major awards, media coverage, patents, publications, notable leadership roles, or metrics showing the commercial or scientific success of your work. Well-prepared recommendation letters serve as both evidence and narrative. They help fulfill specific legal requirements and also tell the story of how and why your work has earned you distinction. In a category defined by terms like extraordinary ability, it is important that every part of your petition reinforces that standard. At Santos Lloyd Law Firm, we work closely with our clients and their recommenders to develop strong and compelling testimonial letters that meet USCIS expectations and highlight each applicant’s unique contributions.
