How did Trump immigration policies affect green card holders?

1. Increased biometric checks and entry-exit surveillance — a new normal at ports of entry

The Biden-to-Trump policy shift in 2025 expanded CBP’s collection of photographs and biometrics at land, sea and airports and announced wider facial-recognition checks for non‑citizens on entry and exit, explicitly covering green card holders as part of efforts to curb overstays and identity fraud ^[7]. USCIS and DHS materials reiterate executive orders and rules that emphasize registration and biometric collection; the administration presents these as national‑security and fraud‑prevention measures even as civil‑liberties advocates warn of disproportionate impact on minorities ^{[6] [7]}.

2. Registration requirement: a new duty that can carry criminal and deportation consequences

An “alien registration” rule implemented April 11, 2025, formalized requirements to notify the government of address changes and other information; the National Immigration Law Center notes that failure to comply can be a federal misdemeanor and a separate ground of deportability — meaning green card holders could face removal proceedings for noncompliance with the new registration regime ^[1]. USCIS’ guidance underscores that registration itself does not create or eliminate status, but the enforcement tools around it have changed ^[6].

3. Renewed “public charge” scrutiny and limits on benefits for lawful immigrants

Policy rollbacks and rule changes in 2025 reintroduced public‑benefits tests and narrowed access to programs such as Medicaid, SNAP, and some health plans for many categories of lawful immigrants, with advocates warning that refugees, asylees, TPS recipients and others may no longer qualify for benefits they previously received — a change that can indirectly affect green card applicants and residents who rely on such supports ^[2]. Legal-practice guides and firms flag that these administrative changes increase documentary burdens on applicants and can alter adjudication outcomes ^{[8] [9]}.

4. Broader enforcement priorities: green card holders exposed to deportation for a wider set of grounds

Multiple legal analyses and reporting document an administration push to expand deportation priorities and to scrutinize older convictions, minor infractions, or past conduct that previously were not aggressively pursued — with concrete cases reported of permanent residents detained over long‑past, low‑level incidents ^{[10] [3]}. Lawyers and immigration‑practice guides say this has prompted green card holders to consider naturalization sooner where eligible and to seek counsel proactively ^{[10] [9]}.

5. Travel bans, policy drafts, and exemptions — what remains protected for existing LPRs

While the administration’s 2025 travel‑ban framework and draft policy memos expand country‑specific vetting and could affect visa issuance, multiple sources note explicit exemptions for existing visas and for green card holders in certain proclamations and guidance — Boundless’ FAQ and New York Times reporting both emphasize that lawful permanent residents generally are not barred by the travel ban as written, even as drafts have considered country factors in adjudications ^{[5] [4]}. Immigration law firms and reporting caution, however, that evolving draft policy language and enforcement practices could produce case‑by‑case risks ^{[11] [4]}.

6. Practical effects: delays, denials, and more intensive case review

Practitioners report longer waits, more Requests for Evidence, social‑media vetting, and closer USCIS scrutiny of family‑based petitions, marriage‑based green cards, and renewals — meaning lawful permanent residents and applicants face slower processing and more administrative hurdles even when eligibility remains intact ^{[9] [4]}. NGOs and news outlets document increased use of Notices to Appear after denials and a rise in detention incidents tied to more aggressive file reviews ^{[2] [3]}.

7. Competing narratives and political context

The administration frames these measures as restoring rule of law, stopping fraud, and protecting national security, a position reflected in executive orders and DHS/USCIS materials ^{[6] [12]}. Civil‑liberties groups, immigrant‑rights advocates, and many legal observers frame the same policies as punitive, prone to error, and liable to chill benefit use and travel; they point to concrete detention cases and to broader Project 2025 enforcement ambitions as evidence of an aggressive approach ^{[3] [13] [14]}.

Limitations and takeaways: available sources document clear policy shifts that increase scrutiny, registration obligations, biometric collection, and enforcement reach for green card holders, but they also show explicit legal exemptions in some travel‑ban texts and repeated USCIS statements that registration does not itself change immigration status ^{[5] [6]}. For green card holders the practical advice in current reporting and legal guides is consistent: keep documentation current, consult immigration counsel before travel or complex filings, consider naturalization if eligible, and monitor rulemaking and court challenges closely ^{[9] [10] [1]}.