Advocacy Group Urges Reversal of Immigration Benefit Restrictions

Families USA submitted a detailed letter opposing HHS's recent policy change that restricts federal benefits for immigrants, emphasizing its unconstitutional nature and negative impact on public health and the economy.
Aug. 13, 2025
3 min read

Key Highlights

  • Families USA criticizes HHS's reinterpretation of 'Federal Public Benefit,' stating it is unconstitutional and harmful to immigrant communities.
  • Over 45 million immigrants rely on federal programs for healthcare, education, and social services.
  • Immigrants constitute a significant portion of essential workers, such as healthcare providers and food industry employees, contributing billions in taxes annually.
  • Restricting benefits may lead to increased emergency room visits, raising costs for hospitals and taxpayers while delaying necessary care.
  • The short comment period undermines public participation and risks jeopardizing billions in federal funding critical for community health programs.

On August 13, Families USA, a nonpartisan advocate for healthcare consumers, submitted a letter to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. According to a press release by the advocacy, the letter is a comment in response to a notice issued last month that reinterprets the definition of “Federal Public Benefit” in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA).

On July 10, HHS announced that it rescinded a policy that extended certain federal public benefits to immigrants lacking permanent legal status. A press release by HHS stated: “For over two decades, the 1998 policy improperly narrowed the scope of PRWORA, undercutting the law by allowing illegal aliens to access programs Congress intended only for the American people.”

In its comment letter, Families USA voiced concerns about the Trump administration’s attacks on immigrants. Opposing HHS’s new definition of “federal public benefits” in PRWORA, the comments emphasize that the notice is “unconstitutional and unnecessarily reverses nearly three decades of legal interpretation” and leaves immigrants, including many who have legal status, unable to access several federal programs — such as Head Start and community and reproductive healthcare.

“We urge HHS to reverse this change to ensure that families are able to access important health care programs that keep our nation’s workers healthy and our economy strong,” Families USA wrote in the letter. “Over 45 million immigrants live in the United States. Of those, over 20 million are noncitizens, including many lawfully present immigrants as well as undocumented immigrants. These immigrant communities are fundamental to the functioning of our nation, making up nearly 20 percent of the essential workforce, including an estimated 5.5 million undocumented essential workers.”

Families USA highlighted that, “PRWORA establishes two groups of immigrants, those who are 'qualified' and 'non-qualified' for eligibility for certain 'Federal public benefits.' Furthermore, the law imposes a five-year waiting period for 'qualified immigrants' before becoming eligible for certain federal programs.”

“Immigrants make up a significant share of the essential workforce: 36 percent of home health aides, 29 percent of physicians, 31 percent of meat processing workers, and 48 percent of fast-food workers are immigrants. Of the millions of undocumented immigrants in the U.S., 74 percent work in the essential workforce and contribute over $35 billion in taxes annually,” Families USA underscored. Also, “denying this basic care upfront in these programs means that these immigrant communities may seek care from already overburdened emergency departments, further delaying care and costing hospitals, states, and taxpayers more in uncompensated care costs.”

Furthermore, the advocacy group wrote, “Given the policy’s far-reaching impact on states, organizations, and communities, the 30-day comment period on a notice that immediately implements a new policy is grossly insufficient to garner and respond to public feedback and appropriately implement a new policy change. This lack of time for both public comment and implementation compromises over $27 billion in federal funding as well as the health of the people who depend on the care it provides.”

About the Author

Pietje Kobus

Pietje Kobus

Pietje Kobus has an international background and experience in content management and editing. She studied journalism in the Netherlands and Communications and Creative Nonfiction in the U.S. Pietje joined Healthcare Innovation in January 2024.

Sign up for our eNewsletters
Get the latest news and updates