The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act in 2026: Implications for Entities Administering “Federal Public Benefits”

Complying with this directive, in July 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), the Department of Labor (“DOL”), the Department of Education (“ED”), the Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued a series of guidance Notices. Without exception, these Notices expanded the list of programs each agency interpreted as providing “Federal public benefits.” Among the programs newly determined to provide “Federal public benefits” were Head Start, all dual enrollment or other similar early college programs, Title X Family Planning, and YouthBuild, as well as programs authorized or funded under Community Services Block Grants, Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (“WOIA”), and the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (“Perkins V”).

These new program determinations carry important compliance and enforcement risks for U.S. institutions that administer these programs. Indeed, recent statements from federal agencies² indicate that the Trump Administration will continue leveraging PRWORA to restrict Federal benefits from reaching non-“qualified alien” immigrant populations.

Below we unpack PRWORA’s evolution and what this means for institutions going into 2026 and beyond.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996

In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (a.k.a., the “Welfare Reform Act”).³ PRWORA implemented major changes to U.S. social welfare policy by giving states greater control over administering social welfare programs and tightening welfare recipient requirements. Among its changes, PRWORA imposed heightened restrictions on the Federally funded benefits certain immigrant populations could receive. Title IV of PRWORA generally prohibits an alien immigrant who is not a “qualified alien” from receiving “Federal public benefits.”⁴

• Qualified alien means “an alien [i.e., a non-U.S. citizen or non-U.S. national], who, at the time the alien applies for, receives, or attempts to receive a Federal public benefit” has a lawful immigration status allowing them to reside in the U.S. indefinitely or is an immigrant who otherwise enjoys a specific statutory humanitarian status.⁵
• Federal public benefits means, with some statutory exceptions,⁶ “any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States.”⁷

Following PRWORA’s enactment, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, HHS, DOL, and ED published interpretive guidance classifying which of their programs provided Federal public benefits, such that they were subject to PRWORA's Title IV eligibility restrictions. Although the first Trump Administration attempted to more stringently enforce PRWORA’s eligibility restrictions⁸ and to use receipt of PRWORA benefits as evidence of public dependency,⁹ the Administration appeared to have little interest in revisiting existing interpretations of Federal public benefits.

Recent developments

On February 19, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14218. Shortly thereafter, HHS,¹⁰ DOL,¹¹ USDA,¹²  ED,¹³ and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”)¹⁴ published Notices expanding the programs each agency interprets as providing Federal public benefits—making those programs subject to PRWORA’s stringent eligibility requirements.

Litigation challenging the Notices remains ongoing. Shortly after the Notices’ publication, twenty-one states sued HHS, DOJ, DOL, and ED, arguing the Notices violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In September, a Rhode Island district court preliminarily enjoined the agencies from implementing the Notices. A separate district court in Washington preliminarily enjoined HHS from enforcing its Notice, specifically as related to Head Start. In both cases the Government appealed the preliminary injunctions, only to later voluntarily dismiss their appeals. The cases continue to proceed in district court.

Despite these litigation setbacks, the Trump Administration appears undeterred in its attempts to expand PRWORA’s reach in novel ways and to new agencies. In November 2025, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) published a similar Notice,¹⁵ and the Department of Treasury announced that it was drafting regulations to classify certain individual income tax credits as Federal public benefits, subjecting them to PRWORA’s eligibility requirements.¹⁶

Implications for entities administering “Federal Public Benefits”

Nationally, grantees such as localities, states, non-profits, and institutions of higher education operate as some of the primary recipients and distributors of Federal public benefits. In 2024, Head Start alone authorized approximately $12 billion¹⁷ and Perkins V programs, approximately $1.5 billion¹⁸— both which are now classified as providing Federal public benefits. Other popular programs, like Youth Build, the National Farmworker Jobs Program (NFJP), and Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA) grants, are also now considered to provide Federal public benefits. And for these programs, agencies have begun to suggest that institutions may have PRWORA-imposed verification and enforcement obligations for the Federal public benefits they administer.

Actions to date indicate that the Administration intends to leverage PRWORA in the years ahead. The Administration dedicated significant executive resources during President Trump’s first 100 days to drafting, issuing, and defending the five agency PRWORA Notices. The Treasury Department’s pending classification of refundable tax credits as “Federal public benefits” further indicates the Administration’s willingness to apply PRWORA’s eligibility requirements in novel ways.

This PRWORA activity comes in a larger context of increased Federal oversight and investigations of grantee institutions for compliance with federal laws.

While the Administration’s PRWORA litigation remains unsettled, 2026 likely will see expansion of programs classified as providing “Federal public benefits,” and grantees should prepare accordingly. Enforcement of the Administration’s Notices remain stayed by district courts. However, cases like Trump v. CASA and others in 2025 showed a growing willingness by appellate courts to extend deference to the Executive Branch when effectuating policy changes. Regardless, the Trump Administration will continue defending the Notices in court, and in the event of judicial losses, the Administration may promulgate amended Notices through the APA’s notice and comment process. And in the meantime, institutions will be under pressure to assess PRWORA compliance for programs already classified as providing Federal public benefits.

In light of all of this, grantees may consider taking steps to evaluate PRWORA-related risks. These could include:

• Confirming the universe of institutional programs and grant funding (including pass-through funding) that provide Federal public benefits.
• For programs already considered to provide “Federal public benefits,” check processes to screen beneficiaries against PRWORA’s eligibility requirements.
• Monitor for Federal programs and grants newly classified as providing Federal public benefits. 

Hogan Lovells is working with many institutions to navigate the evolving federal grant and contracting landscapes, including PRWORA compliance. Please contact us at any point.

Authored by Zach Sanfilippo and William Ferreira.