Trump's racist immigration policy comes for education and food banks

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

The Trump administration’s attack on immigrants is a whole-of-government effort. There’s no lever he won’t pull, no cruelty too petty or vast. On Thursday, a few Cabinet departments debuted their newest move: redefining what “federal public benefit” means so that undocumented immigrants can no longer access a host of resources.

Buckle up—we have to get a bit wonky.

Broadly speaking, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for “federal public benefits” under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, or PRWORA. The more programs the administration can stuff under that definition, the more things they can withhold from undocumented people.

Even prior to PRWORA, undocumented immigrants were largely excluded from direct assistance programs, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. Things get trickier outside of that context, which is why there are lengthy guides on this from immigration groups, as well as detailed congressional reports. The administration is working on sweeping all those distinctions, all that nuance, away so that it can get to the same bottom line it always does: taking things away in order to hurt people.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/7/10/2332715/-Trump-s-racist-immigration-policy-comes-for-education-and-food-banks

[Sparkman3]

1. JD Vance fund raising in Orange County, John Wayne at 5pm. Traffic jams expected per local news.

Willing to enjoy our excellent state's hospitality, at taxpayer expense. Says he's proud the federal storm troopers, masked and heavily armed for combat, profiling, arresting non-violent Latino men, women and children w/o warrants, w/o the due process guaranteed by the US constitution.

[Igel]

2. I'll amend that a bit.

Because when somebody says federal guidance is hard to find, that's a challenge.

Took a minute (okay, maybe 2) to find it on page 61346 of the Federal Register for 1997. 30 seconds to get to the FR, the rest of the time was trying to find the right page.

Guidance letters are the admin's "best guess" (at best) of what a statute means. They can also rewrite what previous guidance for the same statute used to mean (Obama did that a lot) and, more importantly, let people/organizations know the DOJ will come after in court if they fail to abide--even if the courts overturn the guidance later, by then you may be out many $100s of thousands of dollars in unrecoverable legal feels.

This guidance letter (included in the FR) basically indicates that the Attorney General, within some limits, makes the determination as to what's not to be provided or what may be, based on the AG's understanding (and interpretation) of the law. Not Clinton. But I'm sure that Janet Reno and Bill Clinton talked about this long and hard. Reno made a "provisional determination" and, as far as I can find, never revisited it--not that that would matter. I quote, in part:

Therefore, by virtue of the authority
vested in me as Attorney General by
law, including Title IV of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, I hereby
specify that:
1. I do not construe the Act to
preclude aliens from receiving police,
fire, ambulance, transportation
(including paratransit), sanitation, and
other regular, widely available services
and, for that reason, I am not making
specifications of such programs,
services or assistance. It is not the
purpose of this Order, however, to
define more specifically the scope of the
public benefits that Congress intended
to deny certain aliens either altogether
or absent my specification and nothing
herein should be so construed.
2. The government-funded programs,
services or assistance specified in this
Order are those that: deliver in-kind
(non-cash) services at the community
level, including through public or
private non-profit agencies or
organizations; serve purposes of the
type described in paragraph 3, below,
for the protection of life and safety; and
do not condition the assistance
according to the individual recipient’s
income or resources, as discussed in
paragraph 4, below.
3. Included within the specified
programs, services or assistance
determined to be necessary for the
protection of life and safety are:
(a) Crisis counseling and intervention
programs, services and assistance relating to
child protection, adult protective services,
violence and abuse prevention, victims of
domestic violence or other criminal activity,
or treatment of mental illness or substance
abuse;
(b) Short-term shelter or housing assistance
for the homeless, for victims of domestic
violence, or for runaway, abused or
abandoned children;
(c) Programs, services or assistance to help
individuals during periods of heat, cold, or
other adverse weather conditions;
(d) Soup kitchens, community food banks,
senior nutrition programs such as meals on
wheels, and other such community
nutritional services for persons requiring
special assistance;
(e) Medical and public health services
(including treatment and prevention of
diseases and injuries) and mental health,
disability or substance abuse assistance
necessary to protect life or safety;
(f) Activities designed to protect the life
and safety of workers, children and youths,
or community residents; and
(g) Any other programs, services, or
assistance necessary for the protection of life
or safety.
4. The community-based programs,
services or assistance specified in
paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Order are
limited to those that provide in-kind
(non-cash) benefits and are open to
individuals needing or desiring to
participate without regard to income or
resources. Programs, services or
assistance delivered at the community
level, even if they serve purposes of the
type described in paragraph 3 above, are
not within this specification if they
condition (a) the provision of assistance,
(b) the amount of assistance provided,
or (c) the cost of the assistance provided
on the individual recipient’s income or
resources.
Dated: August 23, 1996.
Janet Reno,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 96–22233 Filed 8–29–96; 8:45 am]

Here's the AG's order. The boldface is mine.

It's not a rule, that requires a process. It's the AG making the decision, it's her construction of what the statute means.

Since the statute left it up to her, I don't know how anybody could find standing to challenge it in court, but I'm not going to look for case law about this. But it also means that to change it just requires another AG to say, "Nah, not my construction" and override the previous bits. In fact, the rest of the guidance stands, except for pointing to another AG order (assuming they actually did things according to Hoyle).