‘Public Charge’ in California: How Chilling Effects from Harmful Immigration Policy Hurt Communities

A range of federal policies have made it significantly harder for many immigrant families to access health care, food assistance, and other supports that help them meet their basic needs. Federal cuts to Medi-Cal and CalFresh from H.R. 1, increased immigration enforcement, and concerns about data sharing have fueled fear and uncertainty among immigrant Californians, their loved ones, and their broader communities.

A new public charge rule, which went into effect on September 18, 2026, could exacerbate fear and confusion about the immigration consequences of accessing public benefits and discourage people from participating in programs — even those who remain eligible — through a phenomenon known as the “chilling effect.”  This Q&A looks at what past evidence on chilling effects can tell us about the potential impact of today’s changing federal landscape on immigrant and US citizen families in California.

What is the new ‘public charge rule’?

Public charge is a longstanding immigration policy used in specific cases to assess whether some immigrants applying for certain visas or a green card are likely to rely on government benefits in the future. The Trump administration’s new ruling and guidance on public charge, which went into effect September 18, 2026, rolls back previous guidance and gives immigration officials significantly more power to consider a much broader range of public benefits, including food assistance and health care, when deciding whether someone is likely to become a public charge. While public charge only applies to certain immigrants, the fear and confusion this type of broad and discretionary policy can create means its effects may reach much further. 

This change is a part of broader federal efforts targeting immigrant communities and their access to basic needs programs. H.R. 1 eliminated CalFresh and Medi-Cal eligibility for many lawfully present humanitarian immigrants, including refugees and people granted asylum. The federal government has also drastically expanded immigration enforcement, with a surge of raids in immigrant-dense communities, and has sought — and in some cases, has gained — access to personal data for immigration enforcement purposes under the guise of protecting program integrity. 

Together, these policies make it extremely difficult for Californians to understand what services they can access and at what level of risk to themselves and their families.

What is the ‘chilling effect’ and how does it impact Californians’ participation in public benefits?

The chilling effect on public benefits refers to a phenomenon in which people avoid participating in programs for which they may be eligible. This is often observed among immigrants and their families who may avoid participating in basic needs programs for fear or confusion about how this may affect their immigration status. 

Fear of immigration enforcement, misinformation about rapidly changing policies, concerns about how personal data is used, and confusion about which rules apply to whom can all influence families’ decisions to stop participating in programs or avoid interactions with government agencies entirely, even when they or their families are eligible for assistance. For mixed-status families, this could mean a US citizen child eligible for federal assistance may not be enrolled if their noncitizen family worries that receiving assistance could affect their immigration status or put another family member at risk. 

This effect may be particularly heightened in the current political climate of reckless immigration enforcement that has indiscriminately swept up people who were actively pursuing legal avenues for obtaining immigration status, as well as individuals with lawful permanent resident status and US citizens.

What does past evidence tell us about the public charge rule’s chilling effect on Californians?

Evidence from a proposed expansion of the public charge rule during the first Trump administration provides insight into the potential effects of the new 2026 public charge rule. While the 2018 rule was ultimately reversed, the fear and confusion surrounding it led many immigrant families to pull back from public programs. According to research from the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), between 2016 and 2019, participation in CalFresh, Medi-Cal, and CalWORKs declined significantly faster among noncitizens and US citizen children who lived in households with noncitizens, compared with US citizen-only households. According to earlier estimates from MPI, over 2 million US citizen children in California live in households receiving public benefits that include at least one noncitizen, and could therefore be more susceptible to chilling effects.

Additionally, research from the Urban Institute found that in 2019, more than 1 in 5 adults in immigrant families with children reported that they or a family member avoided participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, or housing assistance due to concerns that their future immigration status could be impacted. This was even more pronounced among families with low incomes. Families also reported avoiding programs not included in the proposed public charge rule, such as free or reduced-price school meals, and health coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace. 

Research on previous efforts to expand public charge underscores that, through chilling effects, these policies can affect US citizens and reduce participation in programs not subject to the rule, extending their reach well beyond the people and benefits directly targeted by the policy.

What are other ways the chilling effect is already showing up in California?

Recent data suggest that heightened immigration enforcement may already be affecting participation in public programs in California. Medi-Cal enrollment among adults covered through California’s expansion to immigrants who are ineligible for federally funded coverage fell by nearly 71,000 people between June and December 2025, after increasing during the first half of the year. The decline was more than twice as large as among other adult Medi-Cal enrollees. While some of this decline could be a result of broader enrollment trends and the direct result of a surge in ICE arrests,about one-third of the decline remained unexplained and was consistent with a potential chilling effect. 

Data from the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) show a similar trend in CalFresh enrollment. In a May 2026 legislative hearing, CDSS reported that approximately 13,000 lawfully present immigrants who would eventually lose eligibility under H.R. 1 left the program between July and December 2025, well before the provision took effect in April 2026. The department’s director attributed this enrollment decline, at least in part, to chilling effects.

“What we frequently hear from the immigrant communities is…how frightening it now feels to interact with the government and to receive benefits from the government, particularly recognizing the impact that that might have on immigration status and just in general being more visible to the government.” — Director Jennifer Troia, California Department of Social Services

Chilling effects from heightened immigration enforcement may also extend to employment. Recent research finds that increased ICE arrests reduce employment among likely undocumented immigrants who remain in the country, suggesting that enforcement can discourage people who are not directly arrested from going to work. The research also finds employment losses among US-born workers in areas with increased ICE activity, which suggests that the economic effects of immigration enforcement can also affect other workers and local economies. Applying these findings to California, researchers at the Immigration Research Initiative estimate that an enforcement surge resulting in the arrest of 1% of immigrants most at risk could reduce employment by an additional 615,000 immigrant men and 466,000 US-born men.

How can state leaders protect all Californians, including immigrants and their families, from public charge and other federal policy threats?

California has several tools to help mitigate the effects of federal changes on immigrant Californians and their families. A key priority should be keeping people who remain eligible for CalFresh, Medi-Cal, and other basic needs programs enrolled as H.R. 1 and the new public charge rule take effect. Clear information, multilingual outreach, and partnerships with trusted community organizations can reduce confusion and allow families to make informed decisions about accessing assistance. Increased funding for legal services can also help provide immigrants and their families with resources to better understand how public charge and other federal policies may affect them. 

State-funded programs can also address gaps created by federal eligibility restrictions while reducing confusion about who qualifies for support. State investments in the California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) and Medi-Cal have previously extended support to some immigrants excluded from federally funded programs. Broad access to food and health care regardless of immigration status can make eligibility rules easier for families to understand and may help reduce chilling effects as federal rules become more restrictive and complex. 

State policymakers can also take more meaningful steps to protect communities from the harms of immigration enforcement, with stricter protections in schools, child care facilities, health care facilities, and other public spaces, as well as across data platforms held by government agencies. By making it easier and safer to participate in and interact with government programs, state leaders can help to reduce potential chilling effects and support Californians in meeting their basic needs, even in the midst of harmful federal policies.

Sasha Feldstein and Hannah Orbach-Mandel contributed to this publication.