Cities challenge Trump immigration rule over public benefits access

New York City and five other Democratic-led local governments sued the Department of Homeland Security to block a new Trump administration rule they say will drive immigrants and mixed-status families away from public benefits they can legally receive.

Why it matters: The cities warn the rule could drive hundreds of thousands out of health, food and housing programs, worsening public health, increasing homelessness and shifting millions of dollars in costs to local hospitals and governments.

What they're saying: "The federal government has waged a campaign of violence and terror," New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani said at a Monday news conference.

• "People could die as a result of these changes," he said. "… The data is clear: denying people services does not erase their need; it compounds it, generating a greater cost to our system that will be placed on the backs of working people for years to come. Nothing about this rule will reduce waste or keep Americans safer or improve New Yorkers' lives. It is simply a vehicle for confusion and a vehicle for cruelty."
• The White House and DHS did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment.

Catch up quick: The administration's rule takes effect this week and gives immigration officers broader discretion to deny green cards and visas based on immigrants' use of public benefits.

• Plaintiffs say the change abandons a century-old standard that limited who was considered a "public charge" to people who are "primarily dependent" on government cash assistance.
• The cities and counties argue the new rule will deter immigrant families from using Medicaid, SNAP, and housing assistance programs.
• New York City, Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle, along with Santa Clara County, California, and King County, Washington, filed the suit.

Zoom in: DHS estimates over 950,000 people might disenroll or decline to enroll in public benefits, though the plaintiffs allege that estimate probably understates the effect.

• The final rule could potentially cause U.S. citizen family members to withdraw from benefit programs.

Worth noting: The plaintiffs also say that the policy alert should have gone through a formal notice and comment because, despite being labeled guidance, it functions as a binding substantive rule.

• The rule follows a Republican reconciliation package in 2025 that limited legal immigrants' access to health insurance.

The bottom line: The cities and counties argue the new rule gives immigration officers too much discretion, punishes lawful benefit use and will discourage potentially millions of people — including U.S. citizen children — from seeking food, health, housing and education assistance.

Go deeper: The health impact of Trump's new "public charge" rule