“During the first Trump administration, one in four low-income immigrant adults in California stayed away from public programs because they feared what that could mean for their immigration status,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta told reporters. “Among those who stayed away, nearly half were U.S. citizens or green card holders.”
California is leading a coalition of 22 state attorneys general challenging the Trump administration's new public charge rule, warning that the policy could discourage immigrant families from using healthcare, food assistance and other public benefits for which they are legally eligible.
The rule, which began taking effect September 18, gives federal immigration officials broader discretion to consider public assistance when determining whether certain immigrants qualify for permanent residency. California officials argue that the administration has exceeded its legal authority and created uncertainty that could affect millions of families, including households with U.S. citizen children.
At a statewide news briefing hosted by American Community Media, Bonta and California Health and Human Services Secretary Kim Johnson discussed the lawsuit, changes to public assistance programs and the growing number of residents withdrawing from benefits amid concerns about immigration enforcement.
The public charge provision has existed in American immigration law for more than a century. It allows officials to consider whether certain applicants seeking admission to the United States or permanent residency are likely to become primarily dependent on government assistance.
Bonta said the distinction between primary dependence and temporary reliance on public programs is central to the state's legal challenge. He argued that receiving assistance with groceries, rent or medical expenses does not necessarily mean someone depends primarily on the government.
Under the new rule, immigration officials may consider whether an applicant has applied for, been approved for or received public benefits, including assistance received for a limited period. Bonta said the administration's interpretation could also allow benefits received by U.S. citizen children to influence immigration decisions involving their parents.
“The benefits that child lawfully receives can be held against their parents,” Bonta said. “Congress never intended or authorized immigration officers to have unchecked discretion to deny someone legal status for using government programs.”
The lawsuit, filed September 14 by California, New York, Illinois and 19 other states, seeks to invalidate the regulation and its accompanying guidance. Bonta said the coalition believes the policy goes beyond the authority Congress granted to federal immigration officials.
The rule primarily affects certain immigrants applying for green cards through family members or employers. Refugees, people granted asylum and several other immigration categories are exempt under federal law.
Johnson emphasized that the policy does not apply to all immigrants and that families should consult qualified immigration attorneys before withdrawing from assistance programs.
California has already observed declining enrollment in Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program, and CalFresh, which provides food assistance to low-income households. Johnson said the reductions reflect several overlapping federal policy changes and cannot be attributed exclusively to public charge.
Some residents, however, are leaving programs before new eligibility restrictions take effect.
The pattern resembles what public health researchers call the chilling effect, in which people avoid government services because they fear potential immigration consequences, even when they remain eligible.
Johnson said children are particularly vulnerable to this effect. California has a substantial number of mixed-status households, in which some family members are U.S. citizens and others have different immigration classifications.
During the previous Trump administration, children who qualified for assistance sometimes lost access because their parents feared that accepting benefits could jeopardize the family's immigration prospects.
Johnson said similar decisions today could affect access to preventive healthcare, prescription medications and adequate nutrition.
The consequences may extend beyond individual households. When people withdraw from health coverage, they may delay treatment until a manageable condition becomes an emergency, increasing costs for hospitals and the broader healthcare system.
Johnson warned that California expects to lose tens of billions of dollars in health and human services funding because of broader federal policy changes. Approximately 58% of the state's health and human services budget comes from federal sources, limiting California's ability to replace those funds.
The public charge rule is taking effect alongside provisions of the federal legislation known as HR1, or the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which changes eligibility and administrative requirements for Medicaid and food assistance.
Under those provisions, certain Medi-Cal recipients will face eligibility reviews twice a year rather than annually. New work and community engagement requirements will also apply to some beneficiaries, while changes to immigration-related eligibility will restrict access to federally funded assistance for particular groups.
Johnson stressed that these requirements are separate from the public charge rule. Public charge concerns the potential immigration consequences of receiving benefits, while HR1 changes eligibility and conditions for maintaining coverage.
California is expanding automated eligibility checks, community outreach and assistance from enrollment navigators to help residents understand the changes.
The state has also invested in immigration legal services, including organizations that can provide individualized advice about whether the public charge rule applies to a particular person.
Johnson said county benefit workers can explain Medi-Cal and CalFresh eligibility but are not necessarily qualified to advise residents on immigration law.
Questions from reporters focused on the consequences of withdrawing from benefits, including whether people who leave Medi-Cal can reenroll if they later discover that the public charge rule does not apply to them.
Johnson said reenrollment may be possible, but eligibility restrictions and state budget changes could complicate the process. California has already imposed enrollment limits on certain expanded coverage populations, and further decisions will be made as the state adjusts to reduced federal funding.
Another concern involved the privacy of information collected through public assistance programs.
Johnson acknowledged that residents are worried about whether personal information submitted to Medi-Cal or CalFresh could become accessible to federal immigration authorities.
California's Department of Health Care Services and Department of Social Services have updated guidance explaining how information is collected, protected and shared. The state has also challenged federal efforts to obtain benefit recipient information for immigration enforcement.
Bonta cited a previous legal challenge involving attempts to use California and federal nutrition assistance data for immigration enforcement, saying the state had successfully blocked the effort.
The uncertainty surrounding information sharing has contributed to broader distrust of government institutions, Johnson said. Families often do not distinguish between state agencies administering benefits and federal agencies responsible for immigration enforcement.
“People don't differentiate government,” Johnson said. “Whether it's federal government, state government, county government, the idea that it's government is concerning for people.”
California is consequently relying on community health workers, local organizations and other established networks to explain policy changes and connect residents with legal assistance.
The state has also emphasized resources that remain broadly available, including universal school meals and community food banks.
Johnson said California's public schools continue to provide breakfast and lunch without requiring families to complete separate benefit applications. The state has also increased support for food banks as changes to federal assistance programs place additional pressure on households.
Reporters raised questions about declining attendance at community mental health clinics, including one in South Los Angeles.
Johnson pointed to California's expanded behavioral health services, including the 988 crisis hotline, online programs for children and young people, and wellness coaches working in schools. She said some freely accessible mental health services have experienced increased use even as other programs report declining participation.
The briefing also addressed immigration-related fraud. Bonta warned that individuals posing as qualified legal representatives may take advantage of confusion surrounding immigration rules.
His office provides guidance on identifying fraudulent immigration services and verifying whether attorneys or accredited representatives are authorized to provide legal assistance.
Johnson directed residents to California's public charge guide and state-funded immigration legal services network for information about qualified providers.
Asked about the status of the lawsuit, Bonta said the case remains in its early stages. He did not provide a timeline for a preliminary injunction or final ruling.
The federal government could appeal any ruling against the policy, potentially extending litigation through the appellate courts. Bonta said most cases are resolved before reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, although he acknowledged that the administration has frequently sought emergency intervention from the justices.
He distinguished the public charge challenge from litigation over HR1. Because HR1 was enacted by Congress, challenges to its provisions involve different legal questions than those concerning regulations issued by the executive branch.
Even if California succeeds in overturning the public charge rule, other federal changes affecting Medicaid and food assistance could remain in place.
Bonta said the coalition of attorneys general provides legal expertise and resources that individual states might otherwise struggle to assemble. California has coordinated with other states on several challenges to federal immigration policy.
The lawsuit is part of a broader series of disputes between California and the Trump administration over immigration enforcement, access to government data and the rights of immigrant communities.
For state officials, one immediate concern is that the effects of the rule may continue regardless of the outcome in court. Families who misunderstand their eligibility could withdraw from assistance long before judges issue a final decision.
Johnson said California's experience during the pandemic demonstrated the importance of broad access to healthcare and public health services. The state has expanded coverage over recent years, reaching historically low uninsured rates, but officials now fear that federal policy changes could reverse some of those gains.
She urged families to obtain reliable legal advice before making decisions that could affect their access to medical care or food assistance.
The legal challenge will determine whether the administration's interpretation of public charge can stand. In the meantime, California officials face the separate task of preventing eligible residents from losing benefits because of uncertainty about immigration law.
Resources for our immigrant communities:https://oag.ca.gov/immigrant
And this release has various resources, including tips to avoid notario fraud: https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-issues-consumer-alert-notario-fraud-obtaining-immigration
