The Trump administration has issued a series of policy measures threatening to impose new immigration restrictions on essential benefits and services. In mid-July the Departments of Justice (DOJ), Agriculture (USDA), Education (ED), Labor (DOL), and Health and Human Services (HHS) issued notices threatening to impose new immigration restrictions on essential benefits and services in an attempt to alter longstanding policy. Several states have already sued over this action. Only days after Congress passed a bill cutting immigrants’ eligibility for nutrition and health aid programs, these new policies could further compromise community health, nutrition, access to education, skill-building, and workforce development. 

This commentary explains these notices, what they do and do not do, and how service providers administering impacted programs may consider reacting in response.  

Summary

Five federal agencies have issued notices reinterpreting which federal programs may be restricted to certain categories of immigrants. These notices illustrate the administration’s harmful willingness to undermine the well-being of families and communities to pursue its anti-immigrant agenda. 

Contrary to the Trump administration’s press releases and subsequent media reports, these new policies exclude undocumented residents and lawfully residing immigrants. U.S. citizens, including children, would also be harmed if their family members are denied help. 

However, due to statutory exemptions in law and the need for further clarifying actions from agencies, the effects of these actions are not wholesale or immediate. Organizations and agencies running programs that are implicated in these notices should avoid taking any steps to deny immigrants access without additional clarity from the federal government. Doing so could exacerbate the deep harm to families and communities, undermine organizational missions, and even run afoul of state and federal law and other statutory exemptions.  

Background

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) generally governs immigrants’ access to federal programs and public benefits.  With some key exceptions in the law, “federal public benefits,” are available only to a specific group of “qualified immigrants” defined by a list of categories in the statute. While the recently passed federal budget bill further restricts many immigrants’ eligibility for certain programs, it did not change PRWORA or its definition of who is a qualified immigrant for federal public benefits. This definition includes: 

• Lawful Permanent Residents (Green Card holders) 

• Refugees 

• People granted asylum or withholding of deportation/removal 

• Certain survivors of domestic violence  

• Certain survivors of trafficking 

• Certain Cuban and Haitian nationals considered to be Cuban or Haitian Entrants under existing benefits law  

• People residing under a Compact of Free Association with Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands.  

Conversely, all other immigrants are not “qualified” for “federal public benefits” under the statute, including: 

• People with Temporary Protected Status 

• People with a nonimmigrant visa (including survivors of serious crimes with a U visa, persons with a work or student visa and others) 

• People who have applied for asylum or for a U visa 

• Individuals granted Deferred Enforced Departure or deferred action, including DACA recipients  

• Undocumented and other categories of lawfully present immigrants 

PRWORA defined “federal public benefit” to include many forms of federal assistance but did not specify which programs are included. Under the law, however, some federal public benefits are available to all and are not subject to the restriction on immigrant eligibility or verification, including: 

• Treatment of emergency medical conditions 

• Short-term non-cash disaster relief 

• Public health programs for immunization, testing, and treatment of communicable disease symptoms  

• Programs that deliver in-kind services, are not means-tested, and are necessary to protect life or safety, as specified by the Attorney General 

PRWORA also specifies that nonprofit charitable organizations that administer federal, state, or local benefit programs are not required to verify a participant’s immigration status. 

While these notices implicate many programs, not every federal program will be impacted. For example, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) are already restricted to qualified immigrants by additional provisions in PRWORA. These programs are also not impacted by the new agency notices. 

New Notices

Responding to a February executive order, several agencies have taken additional steps to restrict immigrants’ eligibility for federal programs in unprecedented ways, putting the administration’s anti-immigrant agenda ahead of the public good. These new notices aim to restrict eligibility for programs that were previously available to immigrant communities. However, each agency’s approach is different. While many of these new interpretations are effective immediately, additional federal guidance or regulations will be needed to implement these harmful restrictions. 

Here’s a look at what each of these recent notices mean: 

Department of Justice (DOJ)

DOJ has been operating under a 2001 interpretation of PRWORA that identified which programs “necessary to protect life or safety” fall within the exemption from immigrant eligibility restrictions. On July 11, 2025, DOJ issued a new order withdrawing that interpretation. The new order, effective August 15, 2025, declares that the Attorney General has chosen not to specify any such exemptions beyond those “set forth in the statute.” However, it explains that some of the programs may fall within another statutory exemption from the law’s restrictions. 

This reversal could restrict access to critical services that have long been available to all otherwise eligible people, regardless of their immigration status. The previous DOJ order protected access to programs for survivors of domestic violence, children, and people in need of mental health and substance use services. Government agencies overseeing various programs may now make separate decisions about whether a service is restricted and how eligibility might be determined or verified. The order introduces uncertainty about whether the most vulnerable people will lose access to services that help them and their communities. 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

The HHS notice, published on July 10, 2025, is arguably the most sweeping of the recent actions, though its implications will not be fully known until further guidance or regulations are issued. HHS rescinded a 1998 policy that for decades has determined that certain services remain available without immigration restrictions. This includes education programs like Head Start and various community and mental health services. 

HHS has now explicitly designated a significant and wide-ranging number of programs as federal public benefits under PRWORA. Depending on how it is implemented, this new interpretation could make these programs unavailable to immigrants who are not “qualified” in the future. These reclassified programs include: 

• Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics
• Community Mental Health Services Block Grant
• Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)
• Head Start
• Health Center Program
• Health Workforce Programs
• Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Treatment, Prevention, and Recovery Support Services Programs
• Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness Grant Program
• Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services Block Grant
• Title IV-E Educational and Training Voucher Program
• Title IV-E Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program
• Title IV-E Prevention Services Program
• Title X Family Planning Program

HHS notes that additional unnamed programs may also be considered “federal public benefits.” 

HHS now defines programs as “federal public benefits” even if they may be statutorily exempt from immigration restrictions.  For example, it concludes that federally funded testing and treatment of communicable disease symptoms is “very much” a federal public benefit, even while acknowledging that it is exempt from immigration restriction under PRWORA. HHS thus leaves open the question of whether any of the other programs or services listed as federal public benefits may be exempt from restriction.   

The notice also does not address how and who might verify program participants. It acknowledges that, under PRWORA, the federal government cannot force nonprofits to verify eligibility and indicates that information regarding verification and individual programs is forthcoming. New verification requirements for state and local governments would be expensive and time consuming.  

The new interpretation is effective immediately, though HHS offers a limited 30-day comment period. The abrupt change in policy and lack of time to consider significant individual, public health, and economic implications demonstrates the administration’s unnecessary and arbitrary haste to achieve its anti-immigrant policies at everyone’s expense. 

If immigrants are denied these programs, the nation will suffer. Community health centers help keep everyone healthy, avoiding costly chronic and contagious illnesses. Mental health and substance use programs reduce homelessness. Head Start ensures that children are prepared for K-12 education, guaranteeing that school resources are used efficiently. The existing exemptions from PRWORA’s restrictions were well considered and longstanding. Reversing them will upend states and cities across the country.  

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

The USDA’s notice, published on July 10, 2025, confirms that school breakfast and lunch programs remain available to all eligible children, regardless of immigration status. The notice restates that, under a separate PRWORA provision, states may choose to offer or restrict food and other assistance to young families through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and certain other programs. As of July 2025, only Idaho has chosen to restrict federally funded WIC services. USDA also designates various USDA licensing, grants, payments, and loan programs as “federal public benefits,” potentially undermining the stability of rural economies and food systems. This includes sub-grants and sub-contracts.  

USDA does not allow for any public comments and makes its interpretation effective immediately. However, any new restriction would require changes in the agency’s agreements with recipients of the specified types of funding or states adopting new, cruel exclusions for hungry children and families, undermining food security more broadly. 

Department of Education (ED)

ED’s interpretive rule, issued on July 11, 2025, revokes its 1997 guidance that exempted career, technical, and adult education programs from PRWORA’s restrictions. Instead, the agency states that postsecondary education programs, adult education, career, and technical education programs are federal public benefits subject to PRWORA’s restrictions.  

The notice acknowledges Plyler v. Doe, a Supreme Court decision prohibiting states from discriminating against undocumented children by denying them access to a state’s system of free public K-12 education, noting that PRWORA effectively “codifies the case into statute.” However, it explains that Plyler was focused on the unique position of children, rather than adults, and that therefore the restrictions outlined by this new rule do not infringe on Plyler’s guarantee of access to a “basic public education.”  

The expanded definition of federal public benefits to include postsecondary education programs could lead to new barriers for individuals seeking: 

• Adult education and literacy activities 

• Career and technical education programs 

• Postsecondary learning opportunities  

This reinterpretation will undermine pathways to economic stability, skill development, and personal advancement for countless immigrants, forcing providers to undertake complex and potentially discriminatory verification processes. ED does not allow for public comments or any delay in implementing its interpretation, but individual programs will likely require more guidance or regulations before restrictions take effect.  

Department of Labor (DOL)

On July 10, 2025, the DOL issued guidance that clarifies eligibility for crucial workforce development and training programs. While it states that all participant-level services in programs administered by its Employment and Training Administration (ETA) are considered “federal public benefits” under PRWORA, it focuses on excluding people without work authorization. This could end up excluding not only people without work authorization but also those, including U.S. citizens, who may face challenges due to barriers accessing necessary documents. 

This clarification particularly applies to programs under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) for adults, dislocated workers, and youth, which are now mandated to verify work authorization for all participants prior to delivering services. While the exclusion is narrower, it may impose new administrative burdens on any entities that currently do not verify work authorization. In addition, many immigrants without work authorization are on a pathway to obtaining it. Excluding them from vital skills training, job search assistance, and employment support undermines their future ability to contribute to the workforce and economy.

Considerations for Front-Line Providers and Advocates

Organizations that administer programs implicated by these notices may be concerned about the current and future ability to serve all in need of their services. It is important to keep in mind that while these notices indicate various new interpretations of what is a federal public benefit, the applicable law, regulations and funding requirements for individual programs have not changed. No agency should deny help to people unnecessarily, such as without clearly being directed to do so, in the case of each potentially impacted program. 

Nonprofits should be particularly aware that they cannot be required to verify a person’s immigration status for program eligibility under this law. Doing so despite this exemption would divert resources from their mission and undercut trust with the community they serve. Some programs, such as community health centers, are also required by law to serve all people. 

Conclusion

These recent agency notices are a calculated assault on access to essential programs that help families and communities. By reinterpreting longstanding definitions, the administration aims to erect significant new barriers to health care, education, and economic opportunity for many lawfully present and undocumented immigrants. While the non-profit charitable organization exemption offers a potential safeguard for some direct services, the broader implications of the restrictions are severe, promising funding cuts due to loss of participants, an equivalently increased demand for state and locally funded programs, and new administrative burdens for service providers and governments. 

Immigrant advocates, social service providers, and policymakers will need to remain vigilant, monitor any subsequent agency guidance, and continue to advocate fiercely against these counterproductive policies that are designed to sow misery, fear, and undermine community safety and trust, rather than support the safety, stability, and well-being of all communities.