Fact check: What are the estimated costs of providing social services to undocumented immigrants in the US?

1. Why the CBO’s $9.2 billion figure focuses attention — and what it actually measures

The CBO’s June 2025 analysis quantifies the direct net cost to state and local governments arising from the surge in migration beginning in 2021 and isolates budgetary flows net of federal grants-in-aid; its headline figure — $9.2 billion in 2023 — reflects additional spending on primary and secondary education, shelter and related services, and border operations, offset partly by increased tax receipts and other revenues ^[1]. The CBO explicitly frames this as a snapshot of state and local budgets for a single year and not a measure of lifetime fiscal effects, federal program costs, or broader macroeconomic impacts. This narrow scope means the number understates total public-sector activity related to immigration, because it excludes federal outlays such as premium tax credits, Medicaid payments, and immigration enforcement that other reports count separately ^{[4] [5]}.

2. Federal tallies diverge: short-term outlays versus long-term fiscal accounting

Several reports that aggregate federal spending on programs accessible to people without lawful status or on enforcement produce much larger figures. A December 2024 report summarized federal outlays tied to benefits like Premium Tax Credits, the Earned Income and Child Tax Credits, Medicaid and CHIP, SNAP, child nutrition programs, and SSI at hundreds of billions across a multi-year window, citing CBO-style projections of $177 billion in outlays by FY 2034 for specific programs ^[2]. An advocacy-focused estimate places 2023 federal expenditures on unauthorized immigrants at roughly $66.5 billion for medical and welfare spending and argues for a broader annual burden exceeding $150 billion when enforcement and indirect costs are included ^[3]. Different definitions of “cost” drive the gap: enforcement outlays, program eligibility rules, benefits accessed by mixed-status families, and whether future tax contributions are netted against present spending all materially change totals.

3. Think tanks and research centers paint contrasting long-run pictures

Academic and policy research offers a different prism by calculating fiscal impacts over decades and varying by immigrant skill level. Recent updates from major research centers underscore that high-skilled immigrants often have a positive long-run fiscal impact, while low-skilled immigrants may show a net fiscal cost in narrow, direct-budget calculations; however, indirect and macroeconomic effects — including upward pressure on GDP, labor supply complementarities, and increased tax bases — moderate those direct costs in some models ^{[6] [7]}. These longer-term calculations emphasize that point-in-time spending estimates can mislead about net contributions over 10–30 years, especially when future earnings, consumption, and tax payments are incorporated versus counting only immediate benefit and enforcement outlays ^{[6] [7]}.

4. Enforcement and border spending add a large, separate line item

Independent tracking shows the federal government has spent hundreds of billions on immigration enforcement and border infrastructure since the early 2000s, a cost stream that sits outside classic welfare-and-services tallies and often gets cited in comprehensive cost estimates ^[5]. Enforcement spending is highly visible politically and varies sharply year-to-year with policy choices and operational tempo. Counting enforcement alongside social services without clarifying overlaps or double-counting can inflate the apparent fiscal burden, because some expenses are categorical (detention, border barriers) while others are programmatic (healthcare, education) and are already captured in state, local, or federal budget lines in different reports ^{[5] [3]}.

5. How definitions, time horizon and political vantage shape headline numbers

Estimates differ primarily because analysts answer different questions: What counts as an immigrant-related cost — only state and local additional spending, federal benefit outlays, enforcement, or lifetime net fiscal effect? Over what horizon — a single year, a decade, or a lifetime? Which populations — only unauthorized adults, mixed-status families, or all immigrants? Advocacy groups emphasizing short-term program costs and enforcement produce higher, immediate-dollar estimates, while budget-analytic and academic work that factors in future tax contributions and economic growth shows smaller or even positive net fiscal effects for many immigrant cohorts ^{[3] [2] [6]}. Recognizing these definitional choices is essential to reconcile divergent figures and to use any number responsibly in policy debates.

6. Bottom line for policymakers and the public: a nuanced fiscal reality

The clearest, narrowly framed finding is the CBO’s $9.2 billion 2023 direct net cost to state and local budgets from the recent surge, a useful measure for near-term subnational budgeting and emergency response planning ^[1]. Broader claims of tens or hundreds of billions reflect different inclusions — federal program eligibility, enforcement, and multi-year accounting — and are valid only when those boundaries are explicitly stated ^{[2] [3] [5]}. Policymakers must match the metric to the policy question: emergency state funding needs, federal program eligibility discussions, enforcement budgeting, or long-run immigration reform each require distinct, transparent fiscal calculations ^{[4] [6]}.