What actually changed on September 18, 2026?

Public charge is not a new concept. Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act has long directed immigration officials to consider whether a person seeking admission or adjustment of status is likely at any time to become a public charge.

What changed in 2026 is the regulatory framework USCIS uses to make that decision. DHS rescinded the 2022 public-charge regulations and returned to a more discretionary system. USCIS officers must still consider the statutory factors—age, health, family status, assets, resources and financial status, and education and skills—but officers now have greater latitude to consider additional facts relevant to a particular applicant.

DHS also broadened the treatment of public benefits. Under the prior framework, the public-benefit inquiry generally focused on cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutional care at government expense. For benefits on or after September 18, USCIS can consider any means-tested public benefit received by the applicant as part of the overall analysis.

For readers considering a family-based green card, our pages on marriage green cards, adjustment of status, and the Form I-864 Affidavit of Support provide additional background.

Will the new rule affect lower-income applicants more?

Potentially—but not because USCIS created a rule saying that people below a particular income level cannot obtain permanent residence.

The practical issue is that several public-charge factors can overlap. An applicant with a modest income may also have limited savings, substantial debt, inconsistent employment, recent reliance on a means-tested program, or fewer formal educational or occupational credentials. USCIS may look at those facts together rather than asking one isolated question about annual income.

The reverse is also true. A person with modest current earnings may have a long history of steady work, valuable occupational skills, a job offer, health insurance, savings, family support, little debt, or a temporary and readily explained reason for a period of financial difficulty.

This is why cases involving students, stay-at-home parents, recently authorized workers, newly arrived spouses, people recovering from an illness, or applicants who recently experienced unemployment should not necessarily be evaluated by looking only at the most recent tax return.

Does Medicaid, SNAP, housing assistance, or another benefit automatically cause a denial?

No. The 2026 rule permits USCIS to consider a broader category of means-tested public benefits, but benefit use is one piece of the overall public-charge analysis.

DHS describes a means-tested public benefit as a government-funded benefit for which eligibility depends on whether the person's means fall below a specified level. The rule distinguishes these programs from earned benefits such as Social Security retirement or disability benefits based on covered employment, government pensions, unemployment insurance, and veterans' benefits.

When a relevant benefit has been used, USCIS may examine circumstances such as the nature of the benefit, how recently it was used, how long it was received, the amount or extent of assistance, why the person needed it, whether the circumstances were temporary, and whether those circumstances are likely to continue.

What if the benefit belongs to my child or spouse?

This distinction is particularly important in mixed-status families. DHS has said it will generally not treat a benefit received by another family member as a benefit received by the green card applicant.

For example, if a U.S. citizen child receives a benefit for which the child is eligible, that ordinarily is not converted into benefit receipt by the immigrant parent simply because the parent completed the paperwork for the child.

There is an important qualification. Household benefit information may still reveal something relevant about the applicant's own financial circumstances—for example, where benefits received by family members demonstrate that the applicant's income falls below a particular eligibility threshold or where the benefit is effectively the applicant's source of support.

How can a lower-income applicant prepare a stronger public-charge case?

The best response to a discretionary totality-of-the-circumstances test is usually a well-developed factual record. That can be particularly important when a tax return or current salary does not tell the entire story.

Does a joint sponsor solve the public-charge problem?

Not necessarily.

Most family-based immigrants must still submit a legally sufficient Form I-864, Affidavit of Support. The 2026 rule did not eliminate that requirement. If an adequate I-864 is statutorily required and is not provided, the applicant remains inadmissible.

A qualifying joint sponsor can therefore solve an important I-864 problem when the petitioner's income is insufficient.

But the 2026 change eliminated the prior regulatory requirement that a sufficient I-864 automatically be treated as a favorable factor in the broader public-charge analysis. DHS says officers may consider the affidavit, the sponsor's circumstances, the sponsor's relationship to the applicant, other sponsorship obligations, and other facts in the case.

Can a health condition or disability cause a public-charge denial?

Health is one of the factors Congress expressly requires USCIS to consider, so a medical condition can be relevant where it affects an applicant's ability to work, financial self-sufficiency, or likely need for assistance.

But DHS has also expressly recognized a binding prohibition against finding someone likely to become a public charge solely because the person has a disability. There is no rule that disability itself equals public charge.

In an appropriate case, evidence concerning prognosis, treatment, the applicant's ability to work or otherwise support himself or herself, private health insurance, and other means of paying anticipated medical expenses can place a medical condition in its proper context.

What happens if USCIS thinks an applicant may become a public charge?

A public-charge concern should be addressed factually and comprehensively rather than by responding to only one unfavorable item. Depending on the procedural posture of the case, USCIS may seek additional evidence or issue a Notice of Intent to Deny.

USCIS has also restored the use of public-charge bonds. If an officer determines that an adjustment applicant is otherwise admissible but inadmissible solely on public-charge grounds, USCIS may invite the applicant to post a cash or qualifying surety bond.

The applicant cannot simply file a bond preemptively. USCIS states that Form I-945, Public Charge Bond, may be filed only after USCIS specifically invites the applicant to do so, generally through a Notice of Intent to Deny.

Anyone receiving a public-charge RFE or NOID should consider having the entire record reviewed before responding. Public charge is only one possible ground of inadmissibility, and the interaction among the I-485, I-864, benefits history, financial evidence, and other facts can be significant. See our broader discussion of inadmissibility and waivers.

Could the September 18 public-charge changes be blocked by the courts?

Yes. The 2026 rule and related USCIS guidance are already the subject of multiple federal lawsuits.

Among the pending cases are State of New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, a challenge brought by a coalition of states and the District of Columbia; City of New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, brought by several local governments including Chicago; and Make the Road New York v. DHS, brought by immigrant-service and community organizations.

The challengers argue, among other things, that DHS has exceeded its statutory authority and that the rule gives officers excessive discretion. DHS, by contrast, states in the final rule that the change better reflects the statutory text, congressional policy, and longstanding precedent by allowing officers to consider a wider range of relevant circumstances.

2026 Public Charge Rule FAQ