Essential but Uncertain: Public Benefits and the Federal Rulemaking Process

Background and Purpose

Access to and adequacy of U.S. social welfare programs are shaped by executive branch implementation decisions. These interpretations often take place through proposed rules, which are draft regulatory changes that interpret statutes and are subject to public comment prior to finalization. This public comment process can be a site of public debate and policy contestation, and the contents of the comments themselves a rich source of data.

The purpose of this study is to understand how public comments describe lived experiences with the social safety net, and what these comments reveal about policy implementation and adequacy. We analyze comments to two proposed rules: Strengthening Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (2023) and Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility (2025), both of which introduced substantial reinterpretations of existing legislation with implications for eligibility, benefits, and administrative burden. The TANF rule proposed substantial changes to state spending of block grants, while the Public Charge rule expanded grounds for denying admission and permanent legal status to immigrants based on their use or anticipated use of public benefits.

Methods

All unique comments submitted to the two rules (n= 2212) were included in this analysis. Team members familiarized themselves with the data through multiple readings of the unique comments and categorization by submitter and stance taken on the rule (i.e. support or oppose). The team conducted thematic analysis using the Sort and Sift, Think and Shift approach of structured memoing to inductively identify and track key topics, visual diagramming to connect concepts, and collaborative analytic team meetings to refine themes.

Results

Findings reveal three key themes: 1) The safety net as a lifeline, 2) structural inadequacy and precarity in public benefit programs, 3) policy-induced uncertainty from the rulemaking process. Comments indicate that while the safety net inadequately addresses economic precarity, even minimal benefits are an essential lifeline for low-income families. Comments across the spectrum (service providers, advocacy organizations, state administrators, and concerned citizens) highlight the importance of public benefits in preventing homelessness, food insecurity, and loss of medical care. At the same time, they stress the inadequacy and precarity of the public safety net, both for organizations who rely on block grant funding through programs like TANF and for the families directly reliant on cash and in-kind benefits. Even before finalization, the proposed rules created uncertainty that rippled across the service delivery ecosystem: non-government organizations noted the impacts of financial allocation decisions on their ability to plan and advocates noted the lasting chilling effects of the public charge rule on low-income immigrant families’ willingness to use these important public benefits.

Conclusions and Implications

The federal rulemaking process, while a democratic mechanism, can facilitate instability in the safety net it seeks to strengthen. Findings suggest that proposed rules, even if not finalized, generate uncertainty among both providers and recipients. When key programs are at risk of being fundamentally altered, especially during shifts of presidential administrations, families in poverty feel the impacts most acutely with limited access to channels where their voices can be heard.