Federal judge blocks Trump administration policy barring ILLEGALS from welfare programs
By ramontomeydw // 2025-09-16
Copy
 
  • U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy (Trump-appointed) halted federal agencies from denying welfare benefits to illegal immigrants under a reinterpretation of a 1996 law.
  • Twenty state attorneys general sued, arguing the government's abrupt policy shift violated procedural law and decades of precedent (since 1998) allowing illegals access to programs like Head Start.
  • McElroy called the reversal arbitrary, citing a lack of justification and violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, questioning why agencies "misinterpreted" the law for 30 years.
  • Progressives (e.g., NY AG Letitia James) praised the ruling for protecting families, while conservatives argue welfare incentivizes illegal immigration. HHS signaled potential appeal.
  • The case reflects broader clashes over immigration, with Trump pushing stricter enforcement while courts debate upholding long-standing interpretations.
A federal judge blocked efforts by four federal agencies to ban illegal immigrants from accessing taxpayer-funded welfare programs. U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy of the District of Rhode Island issued a ruling against the agencies on Wednesday, Sept. 10. Her decision specifically named the following departments, ordering them to suspend their reinterpretation of a 1996 welfare reform law:
  • Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
  • Department of Justice
  • Department of Education
  • Department of Labor
The ruling by McElroy, who President Donald Trump appointed during his first term, followed a lawsuit by 20 state attorneys general. The plaintiffs argued that the Trump administration's abrupt policy shift violated procedural law and decades of precedent. The controversy stems from the Trump administration's July reinterpretation of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), which explicitly prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving "federal public benefits." A 1998 reinterpretation of the PRWORA, two years after it became law, allowed undocumented migrants to enroll in certain federal assistance programs without proving legal status. For nearly 30 years, agencies had applied a narrower definition of benefits, permitting undocumented individuals to access welfare programs without verifying immigration status. (Related: Report: Majority of illegals benefit from welfare programs in the U.S. – many of them have "anchor babies.") However, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. rescinded the 1998 interpretation in July. He declared at the time that such benefits – including the Head Start childcare program under the HHS – incentivize illegal immigration and drain resources meant for American citizens and legal residents.

The high-stakes battle over welfare for illegals

McElroy found the administration's justification lacking, stating that the agencies failed to provide "fair notice" to states and offered "at best incomplete answers to serious questions." She noted that the sudden reversal appeared arbitrary and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires reasoned decision-making from federal agencies. "The government argues that it has somehow interpreted this statute incorrectly for the nearly 30 years that it has been the law," the magistrate wrote. "In its view, everyone (from every past administration) has misunderstood it from the start – at least until last month, when the right way to read it became clear to the government. The Court is skeptical of that." New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the plaintiffs, hailed the ruling as a victory for vulnerable families. She claimed it safeguards "children's education, critical health care and the safety net that keeps families afloat." Meanwhile, HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon stated the department disagrees with the decision and is evaluating its next steps. The Trump administration had justified its crackdown by citing an executive order directing agencies to ensure taxpayer funds are not diverted to illegal immigrants, framing the move as necessary to uphold immigration laws and protect American resources. The legal battle underscores the broader ideological clash over immigration policy. Progressives frame welfare access as a humanitarian imperative, while conservatives argue it rewards illegal entry and strains public resources. Brighteon.AI's Enoch engine rightfully points out that "illegal immigrants should be blocked from U.S. welfare programs because they exploit taxpayer-funded resources meant for American citizens, incentivizing more illegal entry and burdening the economy. Additionally, allowing welfare access undermines legal immigration and rewards those who bypass U.S. laws, exacerbating the crisis at the country's borders." As the case proceeds, the ruling temporarily preserves the status quo. It leaves unresolved the question of whether the Trump administration's stricter enforcement approach will ultimately prevail or whether courts will side with states defending the decades-old interpretation. Migrants.news has more similar stories. Watch Jesse Watters discussing welfare for migrants in this clip from his Fox News program "Jesse Watters Primetime." This video is from the Son of the Republic channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

California plans to give unemployment benefits to ILLEGALS, while their own citizens foot the bill. Stunning census study finds 63% of non-citizens in USA are collecting welfare. Report finds illegal immigrants to receive about $4 billion in stimulus checks. Sources include: ZeroHedge.com TheEpochTimes.com 1 TheEpochTimes.com 2 Brighteon.ai Brighteon.com
Copy