WASHINGTON — A sweeping Republican-backed budget bill passed by the House proposes sharp cuts to social safety net programs for legal immigrants, alongside significant fee hikes for immigration services — drawing fierce criticism from advocacy groups and setting up a contentious debate in the Senate.
The proposal, a major component of former President Donald Trump’s broader agenda, would slash access to federal benefits such as food assistance, health care, and education for hundreds of thousands of legally present immigrants — including refugees, asylees, and other protected groups — while imposing new or increased costs for services like asylum applications and work permits.
If approved, the bill could render up to 250,000 legally present individuals ineligible for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The projected savings from those cuts alone are $4 billion over a decade — a fraction of the overall $286 billion in proposed reductions to the program.
“This is an extraordinary rollback of rights,” said Shelby Gonzales, Vice President for Immigration Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “It’s a level of exclusion we’ve never seen — targeting even the most vulnerable legal immigrants.”
Currently, undocumented immigrants are already excluded from most federal benefits. But the GOP bill would extend those restrictions to many noncitizens who were previously eligible, including refugees, asylum seekers, and individuals granted humanitarian parole. The measure would also remove access to Medicare and Affordable Care Act marketplace coverage for DACA recipients — immigrants brought to the U.S. as children who lack permanent legal status.
Escalating Financial Barriers
In a move immigration advocates call punitive, the bill introduces or raises several immigration-related fees. It includes a $1,000 charge for asylum applications — a service currently offered at no cost — as well as increased fees for work permit renewals, Temporary Protected Status, and filings in immigration court. Individuals caught attempting to enter the country illegally would also face a $5,000 fine.
“These aren’t just administrative costs — they’re financial barriers,” said Heidi Altman, Vice President of Policy at the National Immigration Law Center. “For people fleeing persecution, these charges amount to punishment for seeking safety.”
The revenue generated from these fees would fund U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), immigration courts, and other enforcement mechanisms. Supporters argue it’s a fair cost-sharing measure. “Somebody has to pay for the work being done,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for more restrictive immigration policies.
Longstanding Efforts, New Momentum
Republican lawmakers have long pushed to restrict immigrant access to public aid, with roots tracing back to welfare reforms in 1996. During Trump’s first term, the controversial “public charge” rule discouraged benefit use by threatening immigrants’ future legal status. This year, Trump issued an executive order pledging to end “all taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens” — a claim that critics say distorts the actual scale of undocumented access to benefits.
Data shows that only a small fraction of SNAP eligibility errors involved questions about citizenship status. Still, since that order, federal agencies like Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Agriculture have launched new audits examining benefit distribution based on immigration status.
“This is driven by a false narrative,” Gonzales said. “Undocumented immigrants are not draining the system — this rhetoric is harmful and unfounded.”
Senate Faces Pressure to Modify Bill
The measure’s future now lies with the Senate, where even some Republican lawmakers have raised concerns. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) criticized a $46.5 billion budget request for border wall infrastructure, calling for a reassessment in light of recent declines in border crossings.
“It’s not that we shouldn’t spend anything,” Paul said during a recent Homeland Security hearing. “But $46 billion for a wall is not justified without clearer evidence of need.”
While the bill retains benefits for certain groups — including green card holders, Cubans, and Compact of Free Association (COFA) migrants from Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands — it largely targets those with less permanent legal status.
Advocates hope the Senate will amend or reject the harsher provisions. “We’re urging lawmakers to think carefully,” Altman said. “No child in America should be punished because of their parent’s immigration status.”
The GOP’s push to tighten access to federal programs and heighten immigration costs comes amid ongoing debates about border security, legal pathways, and the long-term shape of U.S. immigration policy.
Related topics:
- Trump’s Immigration Crackdown Unsettles Cuban Exiles Long Shielded from Deportation
- Trump’s Immigration Crackdown Strains Businesses with Hiring Challenges
- Indians Lead UK Emigration and Immigration Trends, New Data Reveals
