S-5331-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
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 published in July 2026. It would also block related guidance or sub-regulatory policies that implement or clarify the rule. The bill includes a non-binding statement of congressional views criticizing the rule's expected effects.
Who benefits
Immigrants and mixed-status families applying for lawful permanent resident status who would otherwise face public charge inadmissibility determinations; U.S. citizen children in immigrant families who might otherwise experience reduced access to public benefits due to a "chilling effect"; hospitals, clinics, and social service providers who serve these populations; state and local governments that rely on immigrant participation in safety-net programs to maintain public health outcomes.
Who is hurt
DHS, which would lose the ability to use appropriated funds to enforce a rule it has already finalized, potentially creating administrative conflict between statute and regulation; supporters of stricter immigration screening who favor the public charge standard as a tool to limit reliance on public benefits among new immigrants; possibly taxpayers if public benefit usage among immigrant populations increases as a result of the rule not being enforced, according to critics.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the public charge rule would create severe uncertainty and impose a "chilling effect," deterring eligible immigrant families from accessing food assistance, medical care, and housing support even for U.S. citizen children who qualify. They cite DHS's own preamble language acknowledging the rule could worsen health outcomes, increase uncompensated care costs, and burden state and local economies, arguing Congress should block funding for a policy the agency itself predicts will cause harm.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the public charge ground of inadmissibility has over a century of statutory basis and reflects a legitimate policy judgment that immigrants likely to depend on public benefits may be denied admission or adjustment of status. They contend that defunding a duly promulgated executive rule through appropriations riders circumvents normal rulemaking and judicial review processes, and that ensuring new immigrants are self-sufficient is a longstanding and reasonable immigration policy goal.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad Article I appropriations power to restrict how executive agencies spend federal funds, and this bill exercises that power rather than directly overriding DHS's rulemaking authority. The bill also touches on the Naturalization Clause and executive discretion over admissibility standards recognized in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), though it does not directly challenge the rule's substantive legality, only its funding.
Checks and balances
Congress would use its power of the purse to constrain executive branch implementation of an agency rule, a check on DHS's regulatory authority that leaves the rule technically in effect but unenforceable without funding.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously used appropriations riders to block implementation of specific executive branch rules, including similar public charge rule defunding efforts proposed during the 2019-2020 public charge rule controversy under a prior administration.