HR-10045-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Judy Chu (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would prohibit any federal funds, including fees, from being used to implement, administer, or enforce the Department of Homeland Security's "Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility" rule. It would also block funding for any guidance or sub-regulatory policy that implements or clarifies that rule. The bill includes a non-binding "sense of Congress" section criticizing the rule's expected effects.
Who benefits
Immigrants applying for lawful permanent resident status and their mixed-status families, who would no longer face the rule's use of past or projected use of public benefits as a factor in admissibility decisions. Health care providers, social service agencies, and state/local governments that serve immigrant communities may see reduced administrative burden and fewer people forgoing benefits out of fear. Advocacy groups representing immigrant and civil rights interests also benefit from having their policy position advanced.
Who is hurt
DHS would lose the ability to use this specific rule as an immigration screening tool, potentially limiting its enforcement discretion in this area. Groups favoring stricter self-sufficiency requirements for immigrants adjusting status may view this as removing a tool intended to reduce reliance on public assistance. Federal agencies that already spent resources developing the rule would see that work rendered unenforceable.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue the public charge rule would deter eligible immigrant families from accessing food assistance, medical care, and housing support, even for U.S. citizen children who qualify, based on fear and confusion rather than actual ineligibility. They contend DHS's own rule preamble acknowledges the rule could increase poverty, worsen health outcomes, and burden state and local economies, making a funding block a proportionate response to prevent documented harms while Congress considers the issue further.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that public charge determinations are a longstanding tool for ensuring immigrants admitted for permanent residency are self-sufficient, and that defunding the rule through legislation circumvents the normal regulatory and judicial review process for challenging agency action. They contend that Congress should not use appropriations riders to override executive branch immigration policy judgments that fall within the President's broad discretion over admissibility standards recognized by courts.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority under the Naturalization Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 4) and its spending power to restrict how federal funds are used, including defunding specific agency rules. This intersects with the President's Take Care Clause authority to enforce immigration law and the broad executive discretion over admissibility recognized in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), creating a separation-of-powers question about Congress using funding restrictions to override an executive branch immigration policy rather than amending the underlying statute.
Checks and balances
Congress would use its power of the purse to constrain DHS's executive rulemaking authority, a recognized check on agency action, though DHS could still attempt non-funded policy statements or await future funding cycles to revive the rule.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously used appropriations riders to block specific executive branch regulations, such as riders blocking implementation of various EPA and ACA rules, though no rider specific to a public charge rule has been enacted into law.