BACKGROUND: U.S. immigration law requires sponsors of family-based green cards to sign Form I-864, the Affidavit of Support. This is a binding contract where the sponsor agrees to support the immigrant at 125% of the federal poverty level. If the immigrant uses means-tested public benefits—like non-emergency Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), TANF (cash aid), or SSI—the government agency can seek repayment from the sponsor for those costs. The obligation lasts until the immigrant becomes a citizen, earns 40 work quarters (roughly 10 years), permanently leaves the U.S., or dies. Agencies have the power to sue sponsors who don’t pay, and add legal fees.Government enforcement against sponsors for benefit repayment is rare. Most documented cases involve sponsored immigrants suing their own sponsors—often ex-spouses in divorce situations—to force ongoing support payments at the required level. Courts have upheld these claims, ordering sponsors to pay monthly amounts. For example, in several federal and state court rulings, ex-husbands have been required to continue payments even after divorce, treating the I-864 as an unbreakable contract.
Actual government demands or lawsuits against sponsors for reimbursing public benefits have been uncommon and usually isolated. Some states or counties have sent demand letters or filed suits in specific cases where large benefit amounts were involved, often settling privately. No widespread program has targeted sponsors en masse, and annual recoveries remain low.
NOTE: Organizations like Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services do not face liability. These resettlement groups help refugees and asylees, who are exempt from the I-864 requirement. Form I-864 is used mainly for family petitions, where individual family members sign as sponsors—not nonprofits. There are no known cases of these organizations being held responsible for repayment.In high-profile fraud scandals, such as Minnesota’s Feeding Our Future case involving over $250 million in misused child nutrition funds, or separate Medicaid fraud probes, the focus has been on prosecuting the perpetrators for theft. While some participants were immigrants, investigators have not publicly pursued their family sponsors for I-864 repayment of benefits. Instead, efforts center on criminal charges and asset recovery from the fraudsters themselves.Individual family sponsors bear the real risk. Many sign assuming enforcement is lax, but the contract is enforceable. Joint sponsors—who step in when the primary petitioner’s income is too low—share full liability and can be targeted independently.
The law protects taxpayers by placing responsibility on those who promise support. It encourages immigrants to work and avoid public aid, ensuring personal commitments are honored rather than shifting costs to citizens. When sponsors follow through, everyone benefits from stronger accountability in the system.
The Trump administration is making sponsors pay back the money that migrants received through tax-payer funded benefits like welfare and health care. Deputy Secretary of HHS, Jim O'Neill, is sending out demands for repayment from sponsors of migrants who have accessed… pic.twitter.com/1450YAAY1R
— Mike Netter (@nettermike) December 20, 2025
The recent Trump administration announcement is already boosting sponsor repayment efforts and has strong potential to significantly increase recovered figures.
In mid-December 2025, HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill publicly announced that his agency sent demand letters to immigrant sponsors requiring repayment for taxpayer-funded benefits (like Medicaid) used by sponsored immigrants. This directly enforces the long-standing Form I-864 Affidavit of Support rule from the 1996 welfare reform law, which makes sponsors legally liable for reimbursing means-tested public benefits.
Historically, government recoveries from sponsors were very low—around $1.5 million per year before 2020—due to minimal enforcement across administrations. Agencies rarely pursued sponsors aggressively, even though the law allowed it.
This new push changes that. By prioritizing collections through demand letters (with threats of lawsuits and added fees for non-payment), the administration is ramping up accountability. Initial letters target cases where sponsored immigrants accessed benefits, and scaling this nationwide could recover far more—potentially hundreds of millions or even billions over time, based on the scale of benefits used by sponsored immigrants in programs like Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, and SSI.
Real-world impact is starting now:
- Sponsors (usually family members who signed I-864 for green card petitioners) are receiving direct bills.
- Non-payment can lead to court action, where judges uphold the contract and order repayment plus costs.
- This deters future benefit use and shifts costs back to private sponsors, protecting taxpayers.
No major organizations like resettlement nonprofits face direct liability here, as they typically don’t sign I-864 (it’s for family-based cases). Liability hits individual or joint sponsors.Overall, this enforcement revival upholds personal responsibility in immigration. Sponsors knew the risks when signing; now they’re held to it. Taxpayers benefit as promised private support replaces public handouts, and higher recoveries reduce the burden on American resources. If sustained, figures will rise sharply compared to the near-zero enforcement of recent years.