A reported Trump administration proposal to require certain green card applicants to post bonds of up to $100,000 is drawing scrutiny from immigration attorneys, who argue that federal law already requires financial safeguards intended to prevent immigrants from becoming dependent on public assistance.
Among those questioning the proposal is immigration attorney and author Kinda Melissa Velloza, who said the reported policy appears to overlap with existing statutory and regulatory requirements governing family-based immigration.
“It just doesn’t make sense,” Velloza said in a video discussing the proposal.
According to reports, the administration is considering requiring some applicants for lawful permanent residence who apply from outside the United States to post a financial bond before entering the country. The stated purpose would be to ensure applicants are financially self-sufficient and do not become a public charge.
Velloza, however, said that objective is already addressed through the Affidavit of Support (Form I-864), a legally enforceable document required in most family-based immigration cases.
Under current immigration law, petitioners sponsoring a relative for permanent residence generally must demonstrate that they meet minimum income requirements by submitting financial records, including tax returns, employment verification and other supporting documentation.
If a petitioner does not meet the required income threshold, a qualifying joint sponsor is typically required before the application can proceed.
“If you can’t satisfy the I-864, then no green card,” Velloza said.
She emphasized that the Affidavit of Support is not merely an administrative requirement but a binding contract between the sponsor and the federal government. In certain circumstances, sponsors may be required to reimburse the government for specific means-tested public benefits received by the immigrant.
Those existing obligations, Velloza argued, raise questions about the necessity of an additional bond requirement.
“It’s evident that the person advising the administration is not familiar with immigration law,” she said, asserting that the current sponsorship framework already exists to address concerns about immigrants becoming public charges.
The proposal has not been finalized, and reports indicate it remains under consideration. According to published accounts, the amount of any required bond could vary depending on the facts of an individual case rather than being fixed at $100,000.
If implemented, the proposal could face close legal and administrative scrutiny, particularly regarding its interaction with long-standing provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, existing public charge regulations and the statutory framework governing financial sponsorship.
Immigration practitioners are expected to monitor whether the administration proceeds with formal rulemaking or other legal mechanisms to implement the proposal. Until then, the reported bond requirement remains a policy under consideration rather than an enforceable immigration rule.
