New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced Monday that the city will lead a new lawsuit against the Trump administration over its expanded public charge rule, which would allow immigration officials to deny green cards to immigrants deemed likely to rely on public benefits. The rule adds programs like SNAP and WIC to the list of benefits that can trigger a public charge determination, according to The Federalist.
During a speech announcing the legal challenge, Mamdani criticized the rule as “drastic and unlawful,” arguing it is intentionally vague to create fear and uncertainty among immigrant communities. “It is intentionally vague as a means of creating uncertainty and fear, to isolate immigrant New Yorkers,” he said. He further claimed that up to 4 million people nationwide could disenroll from health care alone, adding, “None of this is abstract. People could die. … Immigrants are New Yorkers.”
The Federalist, a conservative outlet, reported on the lawsuit with a sharply critical framing, arguing that Mamdani’s stance reveals a Democratic desire to import immigrants to expand welfare rolls and secure political power. The outlet contends that public charge restrictions have been a longstanding part of U.S. immigration law, dating back to 1882 and even earlier colonial statutes.
A Long History of Public Charge Restrictions
According to The Federalist, the public charge concept is not a new or controversial idea. The Immigration Act of 1882, the first comprehensive federal immigration law, barred entry to individuals deemed unable to care for themselves without becoming a public charge and provided for their deportation if already in the country. The outlet notes that this provision has been carried forward and expanded in subsequent immigration laws and remains in effect today.
The Federalist also points to even earlier state-level laws, including a 1645 Massachusetts colonial statute that barred entry to those likely to need public assistance, with other colonies like New York and Delaware following suit. After independence, states continued passing similar laws, and New York had its own public charge law two years before the federal 1882 act.
The outlet argues that the founders and early Americans understood self-sufficiency as essential to liberty and self-government, and that immigration restrictions were designed to prevent dependence on public funds. It notes that Democrats have controlled Congress and the presidency many times since 1882, including under Presidents Obama and Biden, but never moved to repeal the public charge provision. Instead, The Federalist claims, they simply stopped enforcing it.
Political Patronage or Necessary Protection?
The Federalist frames the lawsuit as part of a Democratic patronage system, comparing Mamdani’s efforts to Tammany Hall’s 19th-century political machine, which traded benefits for votes from immigrant communities. The outlet asserts that Mamdani’s speech effectively admits that leftists bring in immigrants to get them on welfare, calling it a “pay-to-play effort that American taxpayers foot the bill for.”
Mamdani’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Federalist. The lawsuit is expected to argue that the expanded public charge rule exceeds the administration’s authority and violates due process and equal protection guarantees.
The Trump administration has defended the rule as a necessary measure to ensure that immigrants are self-sufficient and do not become a burden on taxpayers. The case is likely to reignite a broader national debate over immigration policy, welfare, and the balance of power between federal and local governments.
As the legal battle unfolds, both sides are digging in. Mamdani and other Democratic leaders argue that the rule weaponizes public benefits to sow fear and destabilize immigrant communities, while supporters of the rule contend it simply enforces a long-standing principle that those seeking to immigrate should be able to support themselves. The outcome could have significant implications for immigration enforcement and welfare policy nationwide.
Source: thefederalist.com — https://thefederalist.com/2026/09/16/democrats-admit-they-want-to-bring-third-worlders-to-america-to-put-them-on-welfare/