Trump Admin Makes Green Card Change 'Effective Immediately'
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The Trump administration announced Wednesday that it was making immediate changes to green card applications, stating a previous policy introduced just over a year ago could threaten public health.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) stated that it was making it a requirement that every new permanent residency application require a renewed medical examination form, after applicants were previously allowed to use forms indefinitely.
Why It Matters
The immediate change could directly impact immigrants currently applying for adjustment of status, who would have been allowed to use a previous form signed by a civil surgeon until June 10. Usually, when USCIS makes changes to application processes, there is some lead time for applicants and immigration attorneys to prepare.
What To Know
USCIS stated that the change applies to the medical exam form known as the I-693, "Report of Immigration Medical Examination and Vaccination Record," which is completed by an immigrant in the U.S. who is applying for adjustment of status or to become a permanent resident.
In April 2024, the agency updated its policy to say that any I-693 completed and signed by a civil surgeon on or after November 1, 2023, could be used indefinitely. If an immigrant withdrew a green card application and re-applied, or filed for a different immigration benefit later, they could use the same form again.
Under USCIS's new guidance, effective June 11, 2025, if an application is withdrawn, the I-693 is invalidated, and the applicant must retake the exam to obtain a new, signed copy.
Stock image of a person holding a green card.
Stock image of a person holding a green card.
Getty Images
The move will likely affect thousands of applicants currently looking to file their adjustment of status application, known as Form I-485.
Medical exams are similar to physical exams and include checks for specific conditions or diseases that could render a person inadmissible to the U.S. The examiner, a civil surgeon, also checks an applicant's vaccination records. The exam can cost between $100 and $500.
Before December 2024, only individuals who needed to prove they were not inadmissible on medical grounds were required to file a medical examination form. Now, every green card applicant is required to file one. Other immigrants applying for different visas may also be asked to file an I-693 at USCIS' discretion.
The change comes amid increased scrutiny of immigrants as they apply for temporary and permanent visas in the U.S., as the Trump administration looks to crack down on those violating immigration laws.
In March, immediate changes to a swathe of application forms caused confusion for applicants, leading to a lawsuit from attorneys, and USCIS being forced to change course and offer at least two weeks' buffer time for the changes to take effect.
What People Are Saying
Elissa Taub, an immigration attorney at Siskind Susser in Houston, Texas, told Newsweek: "Previously, I-693s all had an expiration date, so we had clients needing to get multiple exams done while their I-485s were pending over many years due to backlogs.
"Currently, I-693s don't expire, and it sounds like they are clarifying that if you withdraw that application or it's denied, you can't reuse the same unexpired I-693 with a new application. I don't think this is too earth-shattering, and I'm happy that this policy change is relatively narrow and that they didn't decide to create a new pre-filing expiration period."
USCIS, in its statement on the changes: "We have since determined that the April 4, 2024, policy is overly broad and could potentially threaten public health in the United States. By limiting the validity period to only the current immigration benefit application or request, we ensure that aliens get timely and proper medical examinations and treatment, which safeguards public health."
What Happens Next
The new policy takes effect on Wednesday, June 11, 2025, while a new version of the form takes effect on July 3, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
25 minutes ago
- CNN
Newsom Declares Victory After CA Advances Redistricting Plan - Erin Burnett OutFront - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
Newsom Declares Victory After CA Advances Redistricting Plan Erin Burnett OutFront 46 mins Gov. Gavin Newsom of California takes on Trump as his state is now on track to add more democratic House seats. Plus, satellite images reveal a secret North Korean missile base. Also, one brave doctor's rant against insurance companies goes viral.
Vox
2 hours ago
- Vox
The Supreme Court hands down some incomprehensible gobbledygook about canceled federal grants
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Late Thursday afternoon, the Supreme Court handed down an incomprehensible order concerning the Trump administration's decision to cancel numerous public health grants. The array of six opinions in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association is so labyrinthine that any judge who attempts to parse it risks being devoured by a minotaur. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writes in a partial dissent, the decision is 'Calvinball jurisprudence,' which appears to be designed to ensure that 'this Administration always wins.' SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The case involves thousands of NIH grants that the Trump administration abruptly canceled which, according to Jackson, involve 'research into suicide risk and prevention, HIV transmission, Alzheimer's, and cardiovascular disease,' among other things. The grants were canceled in response to executive orders prohibiting grants relating to DEI, gender identity, or Covid-19. A federal district court ruled that this policy was unlawful — 'arbitrary and capricious' in the language of federal administrative law — in part because the executive orders gave NIH officials no precise guidance on which grants should be canceled. As Jackson summarized the district court's reasoning, ''DEI'—the central concept the executive orders aimed to extirpate—was nowhere defined,' leaving NIH officials 'to arrive at whatever conclusion [they] wishe[d]' regarding which grants should be terminated. According to Jackson, 'the court found, as a factual matter, 'an unmistakable pattern of discrimination against women's health issues' and 'pervasive racial discrimination'—indeed, 'palpable' racial discrimination of a sort the judge had 'never seen' in 40 years on the bench.' The question of whether this judge was correct to deem the Trump administration's policy arbitrary and capricious, however, was not before the Supreme Court. Instead, the case hinged on a jurisdictional dispute. Which court is supposed to hear this case? As a general rule, lawsuits alleging that a federal policy is illegal are heard by federal district courts, while suits alleging that the federal government breached a contract are heard by the Court of Federal Claims. In NIH, the plaintiffs alleged that the broader policy that led to their grants being canceled was illegal, so that suggests that this case should have been brought in a district court (which is where it was actually brought). But the case also bears some superficial similarity to a breach of contract suit, because it involved the government's decision not to pay money that it had previously agreed to pay. Four justices — the three Democrats plus Chief Justice John Roberts — concluded that these plaintiffs were right to bring their suit in the district court. Four other justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh — concluded that the case must be brought in the Court of Claims. That would mean that these plaintiffs would have to start over again in the claims court, and possibly that they would have to bring individual suits seeking to reinstate individual grants, rather than seeking a broad order attacking the entire grant cancellation policy. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, meanwhile, cast the deciding vote. She claims that this suit must be split between the two courts. In her view, the district court was the proper venue for the plaintiffs to argue that the overall policy is illegal, but the claims court is the proper venue for them to actually seek the money they would have received if the grants are not canceled. If that sounds confusing, it gets worse. Barrett's opinion states that federal law bars the claims court from hearing 'claims pending in other courts when those claims arise from 'substantially the same operative facts.'' So these plaintiffs likely must wait until after they have fully litigated the question of whether the Trump administration's broad policy is illegal in district court, before they can actually try to get any money in the claims court. That could take years, especially if the first question is heard by the justices again. Moreover, as Jackson warns in her opinion, by the time the first round of litigation is finished, the plaintiffs may be unable to seek relief in the claims court because the statute of limitations for doing so will have expired. The bottom line is that, because there are five votes for the proposition that some parts of this case go to the district court, and also five votes for the proposition that other parts of it go to the claims court, Barrett's opinion controls the case. By the time this mess gets sorted out, it is likely that most — if not all — of the research at issue in NIH will be lost, even if the plaintiffs do prevail. As Jackson writes, without any money to fund their operations, the grant recipients will need to 'euthanize animal subjects, terminate life-saving trials, and close community health clinics.' There are actually even more complexities in this case, but rather than engage in the Sysiphean task of trying to list all of them, I will simply repeat Jackson's summary of what appears to be going on here: In a broader sense, however, today's ruling is of a piece with this Court's recent tendencies. '[R]ight when the Judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law's constraints,' the Court opts instead to make vindicating the rule of law and preventing manifestly injurious Government action as difficult as possible. This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
HHS nixes California sex ed grant after refusal to drop ‘radical' gender lessons
An office within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) terminated a federal grant funding California's sex education program aimed at preventing teen pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases after the West Coast state reportedly refused to remove 'radical gender ideology' from its curriculum, Fox News Digital exclusively learned Thursday. 'California's refusal to comply with federal law and remove egregious gender ideology from federally funded sex-ed materials is unacceptable,' Andrew Gradison, acting assistant secretary at the Administration for Children and Families, said in comment provided to Fox News Digital Thursday. 'The Trump Administration will not allow taxpayer dollars to be used to indoctrinate children. Accountability is coming for every state that uses federal funds to teach children delusional gender ideology.' Advertisement The Administration for Children and Families, an office under HHS' umbrella that funds state, local and tribal organizations to provide support for families such as child care, announced Thursday morning that it was terminating the funding to California's Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) grant. The PREP program aims to educate California's youth, ages 10–19, on preventing teen pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted infections, which the state says has led to students in the program 'delaying sexual activity, increasing condom or contraceptive use for sexually active youth, or reducing number of sexual partners.' 4 An office within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) terminated a federal grant funding California's sex education program aimed at preventing teen pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases after the West Coast state reportedly refused to remove 'radical gender ideology' from its curriculum. REUTERS 'Program services are engaging, nonjudgmental, medically accurate and tailored to the unique needs of youth participants and their communities,' the PREP website states. 'Services are offered in a range of settings, including schools, juvenile justice facilities, homeless shelters and foster care group homes. CA PREP activities also include community engagement and promotion of clinical linkages to youth-friendly reproductive health services.' Advertisement PREP specifically aims to assist those who 'reside, attend school or receive reproductive health services in a high-need geographic area; are homeless and/or runaway; attend an alternative or continuation school; are in or emancipated from foster care; are in the juvenile justice or probation system; identify as LGBTQ; are receiving treatment for mental health or substance abuse issues; have special needs; live in migrant farmworker families or are expectant/parenting female youth up to age 21.' The PREP grant has been under scrutiny by the Trump administration since at least March, when the Administration for Children and Families requested program leaders send copies of its curriculum and other relevant course materials to them for review. The probe was initially launched to ensure the state's sexual education programming is medically accurate and age-appropriate. 4 The Administration for Children and Families, an office under HHS' umbrella that funds state, local and tribal organizations to provide support for families such as child care, announced Thursday morning that it was terminating the funding to California's Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) grant. AFP via Getty Images Previous grant funding shows California's PREP program received just under $6 million from the federal government in fiscal year 2022. All in, California could lose $12.3 million in funding that it has not yet received, covering multiple years, according to HHS. Advertisement The Administration for Children and Families reviewed the program's curriculum and other teaching materials, and found a lengthy list of subjects and language deemed to fall outside the program's 'authorizing statute,' in particular references to 'gender ideology.' In June, Fox News Digital reported Administration for Children and Families gave the sex education program a 60-day deadline to remove all references to gender identity or face potential termination of its funding. The 60-day deadline just ran dry, with the Administration for Children and Families subsequently terminating the funding and sending a letter to Sydney Armendariz, the division chief of Maternal Child, and Adolescent Health Division at the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and Matthew Green, the deputy director of the Center for Family Health at CDPH, declaring it was 'terminating all California State Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) awards and suspending the funding effective August 21, 2025.' The letter sent Thursday reported that following the Administration for Children and Families' June request to remove what it said was radical gender ideology from PREP teachings, California refused in a letter of its own. 4 The PREP grant has been under scrutiny by the Trump administration since at least March, when the Administration for Children and Families requested program leaders send copies of its curriculum and other relevant course materials to them for review. AFP via Getty Images Advertisement 'CDPH will not make any such modifications at this time for several reasons,' the California Department of Public Health said in a letter to ACF earlier this week, according to HHS. 'The listed reasons were: 1) PREP materials had already been reviewed and approved by ACF; 2) the materials are medically accurate; 3) the gender ideology content is relevant to purposes identified in the authorizing statute, specifically the adult preparation subjects listed at 42 U.S.C. § 713(b)(2)(C); and 4) ACF does not have authority to take an enforcement action.' Among the materials Administration for Children and Families found amid its review of the curriculum was a lesson for middle school-aged students that sought to introduce them to the concepts of transgenderism, Fox News Digital previously reported. 'We've been talking during class about messages people get on how they should act as boys and girls—but as many of you know, there are also people who don't identify as boys or girls, but rather as transgender or gender queer,' the lesson states to students. 'This means that even if they were called a boy or a girl at birth and may have body parts that are typically associated with being a boy or a girl, on the inside, they feel differently.' Other flagged lessons in the materials included curriculum for high school-aged students with instructions on what it means to be 'nonbinary' and language that informed students 'gender-identity' is 'essentially a social status.' 4 California could lose $12.3 million in funding that it has not yet received, covering multiple years, according to HHS. Christopher Sadowski 'In a disturbing and egregious abuse of federal funds, California has been using taxpayer money to teach curricula that could encourage kids to contemplate mutilating their genitals, 'altering their body… through hormone therapy,' 'adding or removing breast tissue,' and 'changing their name.' It instructed teachers to 'remind students that some men are born with female anatomy,'' HHS said in a Thursday press release of the teachings. The Administration for Children and Families also had raised concerns over materials for teachers within the program, including lessons on avoiding misgendering individuals. Advertisement 'All people have a gender identity,' the teacher training materials stated, Fox Digital previously reported. It also instructed educators to refer to people who identify with their sex 'assigned at birth' as 'cisgender,' and added that those who are not 'cisgender' may identify as 'non-binary, agender, bigender, genderfluid, (or) genderqueer.' Gradison's letter to the California health leaders Thursday underscored that Administration for Children and Families' decision to terminate the grant is final unless California health leaders file an appeal. 'This is the final decision of the Administration for Children and Families,' the letter reads. 'It shall be the final decision of the Department unless, within 30 days after receiving this decision, you submit a notice of appeal to the Departmental Appeals Board (DAB).'
