Month: December 2025

As published in the Immigration Daily on December 10, 2025

Although not officially released, the Department of State’s November 6, 2025, public charge cable, “Visas: Properly Implementing the INA 212 (a)(4) Public Charge Ineligibility,” has made its way out to the public.

The following is a summary of its contents which, as with other Trump administration directives, places a number of obstacles in the path of those intending to come to the US on nonimmigrant or immigrant visas.

• The current DHS regulation on public charge is aimed at an alien” likely at any time to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalized care by government expense.” DOS is directing consular officers to aim at aliens “likely at any time to become a public charge” and conveniently eliminating the words “primarily dependent”.
• DOS instructions are for consular officers to consider all aspects of the case and determine whether the applicant’s circumstances assessed in the totality suggest that he is more likely than not to become a public charge at any time. [The pronoun “he” is being used in this article as the cable employs the pronoun throughout the cable].
• Factors for consular officers to focus on are age, health, family status, assets, resources and financial status, education and skills, and any current or past receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense.
• Age – For an IV applicant who is nearing or past normal retirement age, what is the likelihood of securing a job in the US that will allow him to support himself and any dependents without the need for cash public assistance? If able to secure such a job, will he be able to work for enough time before retirement to accumulate savings or pension benefits sufficient to support himself and his dependents over his lifespan without the need to seek public cash assistance or long-term institutionalization at government expense? Will he be receiving retirement benefits from the home country while in the US?
• Health – Consider medical conditions including but not limited to cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, cancer, diabetes, metabolic diseases, neurological diseases and mental health conditions. Does such an applicant have adequate financial resources or insurance coverage for such costs over his entire expected stay in the US without seeking public cash assistance or long-term institutionalization? For any class B condition, CDC directs the panel physicians to remark on the likely degree of disability or the need for extensive medical care or institutionalization, and the consular officer must consider the conditions in the physician’s remarks. Where the physician failed to include remarks, officers are to refuse the application under INA 221 (g) and return the medical exam results of the panel physician so that he can include the remarks. For applicants who expect to rely on employer-provided health insurance, what is the likelihood of his getting a job that provides such a benefit and how does he plan to maintain such insurance after retirement? Also consider aspects of the applicant’s health that are not necessarily class B medical conditions but could lead to a public charge determination when assessed in the totality of circumstances such as obesity leading to other more serious conditions.
• Family status – Do any of the dependent family members have disabilities, chronic medical conditions, or special needs and require care such that the applicant cannot maintain employment? Officers should consider whether any applicant’s assets, resources, and financial status will allow him and any dependents to withstand the likely trials of life without the need to resort at any point to public cash assistance or long time institutionalized care with examples that pertinent financial planning normally includes having some cash savings in case of interruption in income or significant unexpected expense or having appropriate insurance coverage – “What are the applicant’s plans to handle a medical emergency while in the United States (including during that two week trip to the Grand Canyon)?”
• Education and skills – Consider English language proficiency – even entry-level or lower skilled jobs require the applicant to be able to serve clients in English, get direction from supervisors in English, and read English language product instructions and warning. Officers can assess the applicant’s English language proficiency by conducting the interview in English, and if the applicant does not at least have basic English proficiency, he should have a realistic plan to acquire it and to support himself and his dependents without using public cash assistance during that time. For aliens in low skilled but demanding jobs like caregiving or agriculture or hazardous ones like meat processing or construction, officers should assess the applicant’s age, health, and family status and whether he will be able to work for enough time before retirement or in the event of disabling injury to accumulate savings or pension benefits sufficient to support him and his dependents over his expected lifespan. For an applicant who plans to work in a professional field, officers should determine whether he has the necessary qualifications and credentials and ask for diplomas and professional certificates and as appropriate, verify them with the issuing institutions. For professions that are subject to state-level licensing requirements, officers should determine how he will support himself and his dependents without seeking cash assistance during the time necessary to obtain necessary qualifications and credentials.
• Current or past receipt of public assistance – Current or past receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or the need for long-term institutionalization is an indication that the applicant is or has been unable to provide for himself and his dependents and could become a public charge in the future. Officers should take into account any past receipt of such benefits in any country considering the totality of the applicant’s circumstances. They should also consider current or past use of any form of public assistance, social welfare, or private charity either in the US or elsewhere intended to help low income people including but not limited to housing assistance, food assistance (including the use of private food banks), and medical assistance.
• Affidavit of support – Officers are to determine if the applicant is likely at any time to become a public charge. In the first place, officers should determine whether the sponsor or joint sponsor meets the domiciled conditions. Officers should consider the credibility of the affiant and examine the nature of the relationship between the applicant and anyone involved in supporting him. They should also consider whether the sponsor or joint sponsor uses or has used any public assistance, including but not limited to public cash assistance. Use of such benefits by a sponsor could indicate that he is or has been unable to provide for himself fully, thus calling into question his ability to provide for the sponsored applicant.

It seems clear that the Department of State through this cable is preparing to crack down on “undesirables” – the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The new America is to be a land of the affluent and healthy. Fitness to work for a long time and making financial or insurance arrangements in the event of emergencies or accidental events is to be the standard. Lack of education or English language ability are negatives. Whether dependents are healthy will impact upon the public charge totality equation or whether all members of the family will immigrate. Asking about whether an applicant has ever taken any type of public assistance of any sort from any country and including from private charities and private food banks is wicked and designed to trip up an applicant’s ability to immigrate here. Indeed, many millions of Americans have taken or are taking public assistance and if intending to emigrate to another country, the application of such a standard would make them the “undesirables”. It should also be remembered that many other American relied on private food banks during the recent government shutdown and during bad economic times in past years.

On affidavits of support especially, readers should be aware that the old practices will not apply under the cable’s standard. The I-864 form and documents will be under heavy scrutiny for credibility. The cable invites intrusive quizzing by consular officers on the relationship of the cosponsor to the applicant to judge the credibility of the cosponsor fulfilling the support obligation, and scrutiny of the sponsor or cosponsor’s ever having taken public benefits in the past as a mark of future inability to support.

The focus on obesity being a precursor to “high blood pressure, Type II diabetes, breathing problems, such as asthma and sleep apnea; joint problems, such as osteoarthritis; gallstones and gallbladder disease; and mental illness, such as clinical depression and anxiety” is unwarranted as people’s eating habits are now more than ever subject to change, especially with current blockbuster medications such as Ozempic and Wegovy and other GLP-1 supplements.

And for what period of time? The cable proposes a forever standard in its language on IV applicants who are nearing or past normal retirement age (is 65 the standard when many people are now working through their 70s?); calling for the applicant’s ability to take care of dependent family members to withstand the “likely trials of life”; and the applicant being able to accumulate savings or pension benefits sufficient to support him and his dependents “over his expected lifespan.”  The Department of State seems to forget that immigrants are eligible for government means tested program assistance when they become US citizens – usually after three or five years.

Besides being short on logic, the cable all in all is mean-spirited, un-American, and should be withdrawn.