Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

Some conservative intellectuals have provocatively characterized the United States as a "nation of takers" and most working-class America’s as "takers."(Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Some conservative intellectuals have provocatively characterized the United States as a "nation of takers" and most working-class America’s as "takers."(Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Trump’s Contempt for Working-Class Expressed in New Expanded Public Charge Rule

It is unimaginable that Congress would classify so many working-class and middle-class Americans as undesirable public charges.

This week the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officially published regulations that radically expand the definition of an archaic immigration law term, public charge, to include various non-cash benefits that supplement earnings and other income, but are impossible to live on in the absence of other income. The people most impacted include millions of working-class and middle-class US citizens who plan to marry or are married to foreign nationals.

The people most impacted include millions of working-class and middle-class US citizens who plan to marry or are married to foreign nationals.Under the longstanding law and policy that existed before the new regulations, US citizens who marry foreign nationals had to show that their spouse was not likely to be institutionalized or end up wholly dependent on income-tested cash assistance (like SSI or TANF) in the future. Under the new rule, they will not be able to obtain visas, known as green cards, for their spouses if a front-line immigration official decides that their spouse is “likely at any time in the future” to receive even small amounts of Medicaid, SNAP, and certain other benefits.

The rule’s expansiveness can be demonstrated by estimating how many US-born citizens receive benefits that would make their immigrant spouse or other immigrant family a public charge. Let’s consider receipt of just one of the programs. Receiving Medicaid would suffice to make someone a public charge under this expanded definition. In 2017, 53.9 million US-born citizens, about 1-in-6 people in the United States, were enrolled in Medicaid. 

Yet, very few of them have anything in common with the supposedly “undesirable” people living in almshouses and asylums that the public charge restriction originally targeted. Among all people covered by Medicaid today:

  • Nearly half (29.7 million) lived in married-couple families.
  • Forty-one percent lived in households with annual incomes of more than $50,000.
  • Some 41 percent, 14.2 million, had post-secondary education beyond a high school degree (among enrollees age 18 and older).
  • Some 8 million worked full-time, year-round, another 7.8 million also worked, but less than full-time, year-round (among enrollees age 18 to 64).

In short, the new rule is so broad that tens of millions of US-born citizens, including perhaps most working-class, US-born citizens, fall within the rule’s definition of public charges.

It is unimaginable that Congress would classify so many working-class and middle-class Americans as undesirable public charges. To be sure, some conservative intellectuals have provocatively characterized the United States as a “nation of takers” and most working-class America’s as “takers.” But Congress did not adopt such an expansive view when it added the public charge restriction to federal immigration law, and the Trump administration has no authority to do so now.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Shawn Fremstad

Shawn Fremstad

Shawn Fremstad is a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress and a Senior Research Associate with the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.

ACLU Demands 'Truly Systemic Overhaul' of US Civilian Harm Policies

"While a serious Defense Department focus on civilian harm is long overdue and welcome, it's unclear that this directive will be enough," says director of the legal group's National Security Project.

Jessica Corbett ·


'This Is Not Over': Alaska Supreme Court Rejects Youth Climate Case

"With the state continuing to undermine their health, safety, and futures," said the plaintiffs' lead counsel, "we will evaluate our next steps and will continue to fight for climate justice."

Jessica Corbett ·


Analysis Finds 'Staggering' Rise in Voter Suppression After GOP Restrictions in Georgia

"This is why we are fighting this new law in court," said one voting rights advocate.

Brett Wilkins ·


'Egregious': Pennsylvania Court Strikes Down Mail-In Voting Law

The ruling was stayed pending an appeal to the state's Supreme Court and as one voting advocate put it: "The fight's not over yet, folks."

Julia Conley ·


Big Win for Open Internet as Court Upholds California Net Neutrality Law

One legal advocate called the Ninth Circuit's opinion "a great decision and a major victory for internet users in California and nationwide."

Kenny Stancil ·

Support our work.

We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100% reader supported.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values.
Direct to your inbox.

Subscribe to our Newsletter.


Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit | Privacy Policy
Common Dreams Logo