Visa Freeze and the "Public Charge" Clause: The Global Shockwaves of Trump's Immigration Policy
16/01/2026
On [Date], an internal memorandum from the U.S. Department of State, disclosed by Fox News, quickly sent shockwaves through global diplomatic and immigration policy circles. The memorandum directed that, starting from [Month] [Day], the United States would indefinitely suspend the processing of immigrant visa applications from [number] countries. The list spans multiple continents, including long-standing U.S. policy focal points such as Afghanistan, Iran, and Somalia, as well as unexpectedly encompassing countries with close ties to the United States, such as Brazil, Colombia, and Thailand. Overnight, the path to permanent residency in the United States was temporarily blocked for citizens of over one-third of the world’s countries.
This is not an isolated administrative adjustment. It signifies that during its second term, the Trump administration has forged the long-standing immigration law provision of "public charge" into a core policy tool for systematically tightening legal immigration pathways. The breadth of its impact, the strictness of its review standards, and the strength of its enforcement resolve have far exceeded external expectations, heralding the most profound paradigm shift in the U.S. immigration system in decades.
Core Policy: The Comprehensive Weaponization of the "Public Charge" Clause
The official reason for this visa suspension directly points to the long-standing but variably interpreted "public charge" clause in the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act. This clause authorizes consular officers to deny entry to foreigners deemed "likely at any time to become a public charge." However, the definition of what constitutes a "public charge" varies significantly across different administrations.
The definition of the Trump administration is being dramatically broadened. According to guidance cables sent by the State Department to embassies and consulates worldwide in November 2025, consular officers are now required to conduct an unprecedented comprehensive review of applicants. The evaluation factors extend far beyond financial status to a vast and detailed indicator system: age, health status (including BMI), English proficiency, educational background, vocational skills, family structure, and even the potential future need for long-term medical care. A history of having received government cash assistance or long-term institutional care will become an almost insurmountable obstacle.
This means that an elderly parent wishing to reunite with their children in the U.S. may be denied due to age and potential medical needs; an engineer with outstanding professional skills but poor English may also be deemed as having "difficulty integrating" and face risks.The policy logic has shifted from "selecting the capable" to "excluding all potential burdens", with its severity even prompting some immigration lawyers to exclaim that it nearly amounts to a "systematic shutdown of the legal immigration system".
This shift follows a clear trajectory. As early as 2018, during his first term, Trump attempted to significantly expand the definition of "public charge" to include non-cash benefits such as food stamps, Medicaid, and housing vouchers, though the effort was later stalled by legal challenges. The Biden administration narrowed the definition after taking office. Now, with Trump returning to the White House, a stricter and broader interpretation has resurfaced, backed by unprecedented enforcement. According to State Department data, in 2023 alone, the United States revoked over 100,000 issued visas, a figure 2.5 times higher than the previous year, paving the way for this large-scale suspension.
The Hidden Meaning Behind the List: The Complex Interplay of Geopolitics and Domestic Politics
The list of countries itself is a thought-provoking document of geopolitics and domestic policy. It is not merely a collection of "developing countries"; its composition reveals multiple strategic considerations.
First, the list covers targets of traditional U.S. security concerns. Countries such as Russia, Iran, and Syria are included, continuing the Trump administration's consistent practice of restricting immigration on national security grounds. The case of Somalia is particularly notable. The large-scale investigation into public benefits fraud in Minnesota was directly cited by officials as a reason to strengthen scrutiny, demonstrating how specific domestic incidents can quickly translate into broad policies targeting specific nationality groups.
Secondly, the list includes a large number of countries from Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa, echoing Trump's commitment made in November 2025 to "permanently halt immigration from all Third World countries." This promise was made following an incident where an Afghan national shot a National Guard member near the White House. Linking an isolated violent incident to immigration policies for entire regions is a typical tactic of his political narrative. Secondly, the list includes a large number of countries from Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa, echoing Trump's commitment made in November 2025 to "permanently halt immigration from all Third World countries." This promise was made following an incident where an Afghan national shot a National Guard member near the White House. Linking an isolated violent incident to immigration policies for entire regions is a typical tactic of his political narrative.
Most notably, the inclusion of some "allies" or important partner countries. The listing of countries such as Brazil, Colombia, Thailand, and Egypt sends a strong signal: economic ties and diplomatic relations can no longer provide exemptions for their citizens to obtain immigration visas. Taking Brazil as an example, as a major country in the Western Hemisphere and a long-term participant in the visa waiver program, its citizens will now face the same systematic suspension when applying for green cards as applicants from conflict zones, which undoubtedly impacts bilateral relations. Analysis indicates that this "indiscriminate" list aims to maximize the deterrent effect of the policy, showing that any country whose immigrant population is identified by data models as having a higher likelihood of welfare dependency will be included in the restrictions.
The breadth of the list also serves domestic political purposes. By expanding the restrictions from a few predominantly Muslim countries to 75 nations across all continents, the policy presents a facade of "non-discrimination," aimed at circumventing the legal challenges faced by previous travel bans. Simultaneously, such a large-scale action reinforces the perception of a "tough immigration policy" among its core voter base, even though its actual effects could severely impact U.S. societal and economic sectors that rely on family reunification and skilled immigration.
Contradictions and Paradoxes: The Parallel Worlds of World Cup Priority and Immigration Freeze
Just as the door to immigration visas is slowly closing, another door offers a "fast track" for specific groups, creating a stark policy paradox.
In the summer of 2026, the United States will co-host the FIFA World Cup with Canada and Mexico. Facing an anticipated influx of global fans, the Trump administration reached an agreement with FIFA President Gianni Infantino, fans holding match tickets will have the opportunity for priority visa appointment interviews. Secretary of State Marco Rubio personally urged fans to apply early, emphasizing that "a ticket is not a visa, but it can get you to the front of the line." In the summer of 2026, the United States will co-host the FIFA World Cup with Canada and Mexico. Facing an anticipated influx of global fans, the Trump administration reached an agreement with FIFA President Gianni Infantino, fans holding match tickets will have the opportunity for priority visa appointment interviews. Secretary of State Marco Rubio personally urged fans to apply early, emphasizing that "a ticket is not a visa, but it can get you to the front of the line."
This arrangement highlights the inherent utilitarian logic of the policy: short-term consumption and economic gains are welcomed, while long-term settlement and integration are strictly guarded against. Non-immigrant visas (tourist, business, student) are not affected by this suspension, further delineating the boundary between "the visitors we need" and "the immigrants we are wary of." However, such a distinction is difficult to maintain clearly in practice. The strict atmosphere of immigration scrutiny, along with the heightened intensity of social media vetting and background checks, inevitably casts a chilling effect on all visa applicants.
The greater contradiction lies in the labor market. On one hand, the government has significantly increased the application fees for high-skilled work visas such as H-1B to $100,000, claiming to protect American citizens' employment; on the other hand, the United States is facing structural labor shortages in multiple industries. David Bier, Director of Immigration Studies at the Cato Institute, points out that this suspension will prevent approximately 315,000 legal immigrants from entering the country over the next year, which is nearly half of the annual number of legal immigrants. Against the backdrop of low unemployment rates, the long-term economic costs of such a drastic contraction in labor supply have not been fully discussed. The greater contradiction lies in the labor market. On one hand, the government has significantly increased the application fees for high-skilled work visas such as H-1B to $100,000, claiming to protect American citizens' employment; on the other hand, the United States is facing structural labor shortages in multiple industries. David Bier, Director of Immigration Studies at the Cato Institute, points out that this suspension will prevent approximately 315,000 legal immigrants from entering the country over the next year, which is nearly half of the annual number of legal immigrants. Against the backdrop of low unemployment rates, the long-term economic costs of such a drastic contraction in labor supply have not been fully discussed.
Long-term Impact: Identity Reconstruction in Immigrant Nations and Global Chain Reactions
The Trump administration's current action is not an isolated policy, but a crucial piece in its systematic immigration reform puzzle. Other components include: reducing the annual refugee admission cap to a historic low; terminating Temporary Protected Status for immigrants from certain countries; and implementing "self-deportation" measures and expedited removals, which may result in the United States experiencing its first negative net migration since the 1970s. According to estimates by the Brookings Institution, the net population decrease could range between 100,000 and 1.5 million.
These policies collectively point towards one goal: fundamentally reducing the foreign-born population in the United States and reshaping its traditional identity as a "nation of immigrants". The underlying philosophy is a nationalist "America First" vision, emphasizing cultural homogeneity and fiscal protectionism, aiming to thoroughly overhaul the post-World War II U.S. immigration system, which has been built on the pillars of family reunification, refugee asylum, and high-skilled talent recruitment.
The global impact is already evident. The 75 affected countries need to reassess their personnel exchange strategies with the United States. Countries reliant on remittances may face economic pressure; for countries with close academic and technological cooperation with the U.S., the two-way flow of talent will be hindered. More importantly, the shift in U.S. policy may provide a template for other developed countries to emulate, further pushing global migration governance towards a more restrictive, securitized, and internalized direction. The global impact is already evident. The 75 affected countries need to reassess their personnel exchange strategies with the United States. Countries reliant on remittances may face economic pressure; for countries with close academic and technological cooperation with the U.S., the two-way flow of talent will be hindered. More importantly, the shift in U.S. policy may provide a template for other developed countries to emulate, further pushing global migration governance towards a more restrictive, securitized, and internalized direction.
In the short term, the "indefinite" nature of the visa suspension has created significant uncertainty. Tens of thousands of pending applications have been left in limbo, families have been separated, and life plans have been disrupted. Legal challenges are already brewing, centering on the boundaries of the administration's authority to interpret the "public charge" provision and whether its policies constitute disguised discrimination based on nationality.
In the long term, the storm triggered by the "public charge" clause is redefining who qualifies as an "American." It is no longer solely about border security or illegal immigration but has penetrated deep into the marrow of the legal immigration system, challenging the nation's core ideals of opportunity, integration, and openness. Regardless of its legal fate, this transformation has already carved a deep and indelible mark into American society and the international order.
Reference materials
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-15/us-suspend-immigrant-visa-processing-75-countries/106230746
https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2026-01/usa-migrationspolitik-visa-vergabe-stopp
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/14/politics/us-suspending-immigrant-visa-processing-75-countries
https://www.mathrubhumi.com/news/world/us-halts-immigration-visas-75-countries-oxk9alj9