US President Donald Trump’s administration has run into two major setbacks while trying to enforce its hardline immigration policies. On one side, a federal court has suspended the administration’s proposed visa policy. On the other, nearly two dozen US states have launched a legal fight against restrictions imposed on immigrants seeking permanent residency.
The Trump administration had adopted a visa policy setting fixed time limits on how long foreign students and journalists could stay in the United States. The policy was due to take effect on Tuesday local time. But a day earlier, on Monday, a federal judge suspended it.
Under the visa policy proposed in August 2025, foreign nationals on student visas would not be allowed to stay in the United States for more than four years. Foreign journalists would be allowed to stay on visas for only 240 days, though they could apply for an additional 240 days.
In response to a petition from a coalition of US labour unions and higher-education organisations, District Judge F Dennis Saylor IV of the Boston district court issued the order suspending the Department of Homeland Security’s policy just a day before it was due to take effect.
Judge Saylor, appointed by Republican former president George W Bush, said the existing system has allowed millions of academics to contribute to groundbreaking research and significant economic expansion. He said the harm to higher education and the broader US economy from the proposed visa policy could be devastating.
Roughly 1.6 million foreign students holding F visas, along with about 500,000 J-visa holders under education, research, training and cultural exchange programmes, would have fallen under the Trump administration’s visa policy. Judge Saylor said the administration’s justification — citing national security and the need to prevent fraud in the visa programme — was extremely weak.
Lawsuit against the ‘public charge’ policy
Separately, 22 US states and Washington DC have filed lawsuits against the Trump administration’s “public charge” policy. Two more lawsuits were filed yesterday in a federal court in Manhattan. The policy is due to take effect this coming Friday.
In legal terms, a “public charge” refers to a person who relies primarily on government benefits and assistance for their livelihood. Under the new rule, if applicants for a green card or permanent residency are deemed a “public charge,” the US administration would be able to directly deny or reject their application.
The existing policy provides clear guidance on which government benefits count when considering someone a “public charge.” Trump’s proposed policy removes that guidance, effectively expanding immigration officials’ discretion to decide who counts as a “public charge.” This would let officials count even non-cash government assistance toward that determination. In addition, under Trump’s proposed policy, immigrant families would have no way of knowing in advance which services might see them classified as a “public charge” — putting them at risk simply for using services such as free healthcare through Medicaid or food assistance cards.
Authorities in 22 states, including New York, California and Illinois, along with Washington DC, have sued over the proposed policy. Six cities and counties have separately challenged it in another lawsuit.
New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani said in a statement that the policy’s aim is to push immigrant families away from programmes that have provided people with food and healthcare for decades.
The lawsuits argue that the sole authority to set eligibility for permanent residency (green cards) lies with the US Congress. But the Trump administration, they argue, is trying to bypass Congress and enforce a new policy on its own, abusing its legal authority. The plaintiffs argue that denying or stripping someone of their permanent residency application because they received legitimate government benefits such as food and medical assistance is unlawful, and that the Trump administration’s policy conflicts with the country’s own laws.