A bipartisan group of 127 US lawmakers has warned that a proposed overhaul of the “public charge” rule by the Trump administration could severely disrupt the legal immigration system, particularly for families transitioning from H-1B visas to permanent residency.

In a letter dated December 19 and released this week, 110 members of the House of Representatives and 17 US Senators urged the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to withdraw the proposal and retain the existing 2022 public charge regulations. The lawmakers argued that the current framework offers clarity, consistency, and fairness for immigrant families and immigration officers alike.

“The proposed public charge rule will lead to mass uncertainty, disparate and arbitrary outcomes for individuals applying for permanent status or admission into our country, and undue harm to US citizens,” the lawmakers stated.

The congressional effort was led in the House by Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Chair Grace Meng, Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat, Democratic Women’s Caucus Chair Teresa Leger Fernandez, Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke, and Representative Robert Menendez. In the Senate, the letter was spearheaded by Senators Mazie Hirono, Alex Padilla, and Cory Booker.

Three Indian American lawmakers—Raja Krishnamoorthi, Ro Khanna, and Pramila Jayapal—were among the signatories, highlighting concerns particularly relevant to the Indian immigrant community.

According to the letter, the Trump administration’s proposal would rescind the 2022 public charge regulations and replace them with what lawmakers described as vague and undefined standards. Future determinations would rely on shifting “policy and interpretive tools,” potentially opening the door to arbitrary or inconsistent decision-making.

Lawmakers warned that such ambiguity could generate fear among immigrant families, erode trust in the legal immigration system, and discourage lawful participation in public benefit programs. They noted that Congress has long sought to protect vulnerable populations—including refugees, survivors of domestic violence or human trafficking, and abused or neglected children—from punitive public charge interpretations.

By eliminating the existing regulatory framework without establishing a lawful replacement, the proposal would create immediate uncertainty for families seeking adjustment of status, the letter said.

The lawmakers cited extensive research demonstrating that previous expansions of public charge interpretations had severe “chilling effects.” Confusion over eligibility caused many immigrant families, including those with US citizen children, to avoid health insurance, nutrition assistance, and early childhood programs critical to long-term well-being.

The letter also raised concerns that the proposal could conflict with long-standing interpretations of the Immigration and Nationality Act and lead to discriminatory enforcement. Lawmakers cautioned that DHS might rely on undefined or potentially unlawful data-sharing practices with other agencies, further undermining transparency and accountability in immigration adjudications.

Beyond immigrant households, the lawmakers warned of broader public consequences. Reduced access to preventive healthcare and nutrition programs could increase uncompensated emergency care, worsen child health outcomes, and place additional strain on state and local public health systems.

These concerns are particularly acute for employment-based immigrants—especially Indian nationals—who face the longest green card backlogs in the United States. Many Indian professionals remain on H-1B or other temporary visas for a decade or more while awaiting permanent residency, often raising US citizen children during that time.

Lawmakers emphasized that uncertainty over how DHS might assess lawful benefit use could discourage families from seeking assistance they are legally entitled to receive, further destabilizing an already complex immigration process.