Diabetes, Heart Disease Could Now Block US Visa Approvals Under New Immigration Policy
In a controversial new immigration policy, the United States government under President Donald Trump has expanded its power to deny visas and green cards to foreign nationals based on pre-existing health conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. The new guidance, issued by the U.S. Department of State, marks a significant shift in how medical history may influence immigration eligibility, drawing both criticism and concern from human rights and immigration advocates.
The directive, sent to U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide, asks visa officers to flag applicants with chronic illnesses that could require expensive long-term care. The decision effectively ties health status to immigration admissibility—an unprecedented move even in the context of the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown.
The memo specifically listed cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, cancers, diabetes, metabolic and neurological disorders, and mental health conditions as ailments that could require “hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of care.” Officers are also instructed to take note of obesity, given its potential complications such as asthma, sleep apnea, and hypertension.
While the list of illnesses is not exhaustive, the department made it clear that any condition that might result in significant healthcare costs should be flagged. This expanded definition of “public charge” is now being viewed as a means of filtering out applicants deemed “financially risky” due to long-term medical needs.
The new rule therefore serves two of Trump’s stated goals: reducing legal immigration and ensuring that those who are granted entry can “sustain themselves without relying on the U.S. welfare system.”
Critics, however, argue that the measure discriminates against people with disabilities and chronic conditions, effectively penalising them for health issues that are often manageable or non-communicable.
Health screenings have always been part of the immigration process, but traditionally, the focus was on communicable diseases like tuberculosis or sexually transmitted infections, which posed public health risks. This new rule marks the first time that non-communicable conditions—such as diabetes or cancer—could directly affect visa outcomes.
Even more concerning for many applicants is that visa officers, who are not medical professionals, will now have broad discretion to interpret an applicant’s health condition and predict future medical expenses.
According to immigration experts, the directive could have a disproportionate impact on older applicants and individuals from countries with higher rates of chronic diseases. They argue that the decision-making process will likely become subjective and inconsistent, with decisions varying widely between different consulates and individual officers.
Health and human rights organisations also warn that such a rule could lead to misuse of authority, as officers may draw assumptions about a person’s health based on appearance or incomplete medical documentation.
Medical experts have also voiced concern that this rule could discourage applicants from disclosing their medical conditions honestly, fearing that doing so would jeopardise their chances. This, they warn, could undermine the reliability of health screenings altogether.
For international students and professionals, the policy also introduces uncertainty. While the rule ostensibly targets immigrant visas, its language leaves room for interpretation—raising the possibility that even temporary visa holders could be affected.
Several advocacy groups are now exploring legal challenges, arguing that the rule violates anti-discrimination provisions and international human rights standards.
The directive, sent to U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide, asks visa officers to flag applicants with chronic illnesses that could require expensive long-term care. The decision effectively ties health status to immigration admissibility—an unprecedented move even in the context of the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown.
A New Definition of “Public Charge”
At the heart of this policy is the expansion of what the United States defines as a potential “public charge”—a legal term used to describe individuals who might become primarily dependent on government assistance. The State Department’s cable to its officers stated that applicants suffering from certain chronic diseases may pose “a potential financial burden” on the U.S. healthcare system.The memo specifically listed cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, cancers, diabetes, metabolic and neurological disorders, and mental health conditions as ailments that could require “hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of care.” Officers are also instructed to take note of obesity, given its potential complications such as asthma, sleep apnea, and hypertension.
While the list of illnesses is not exhaustive, the department made it clear that any condition that might result in significant healthcare costs should be flagged. This expanded definition of “public charge” is now being viewed as a means of filtering out applicants deemed “financially risky” due to long-term medical needs.
Why the Restriction Has Been Imposed
According to U.S. officials, the reasoning behind this measure stems from the administration’s view that chronic illnesses are indicators of future financial dependency. President Trump’s team has repeatedly argued that American taxpayers should not be responsible for supporting immigrants who could become a burden on public resources.The new rule therefore serves two of Trump’s stated goals: reducing legal immigration and ensuring that those who are granted entry can “sustain themselves without relying on the U.S. welfare system.”
Critics, however, argue that the measure discriminates against people with disabilities and chronic conditions, effectively penalising them for health issues that are often manageable or non-communicable.
Uncertainty Over Scope and Implementation
The policy, first reported by The Times of India , remains ambiguous in scope, raising questions about who exactly will be affected. Officially, the rule applies to all visa categories—including tourist (B1/B2), student (F1), and immigrant visas. However, experts suggest it will be most strictly enforced for permanent residency applicants, such as those seeking green cards.Health screenings have always been part of the immigration process, but traditionally, the focus was on communicable diseases like tuberculosis or sexually transmitted infections, which posed public health risks. This new rule marks the first time that non-communicable conditions—such as diabetes or cancer—could directly affect visa outcomes.
Even more concerning for many applicants is that visa officers, who are not medical professionals, will now have broad discretion to interpret an applicant’s health condition and predict future medical expenses.
Immigration Advocates Raise Alarm
Immigration and civil rights advocates have condemned the move, calling it one of the most discriminatory policies ever introduced under the guise of immigration control.According to immigration experts, the directive could have a disproportionate impact on older applicants and individuals from countries with higher rates of chronic diseases. They argue that the decision-making process will likely become subjective and inconsistent, with decisions varying widely between different consulates and individual officers.
Health and human rights organisations also warn that such a rule could lead to misuse of authority, as officers may draw assumptions about a person’s health based on appearance or incomplete medical documentation.
“This policy essentially gives consular officers the power to act as doctors—without medical training,” said one immigration policy analyst. “It’s unfair, unscientific, and could reduce legal immigration drastically.”
Broader Context: Trump’s Immigration Crackdown
The new health-based visa restriction fits into the Trump administration’s broader effort to tighten U.S. immigration controls. Over the past few years, the administration has introduced policies aimed at reducing both legal and illegal immigration, such as:- The “Project Firewall” initiative, which launched over 175 probes into alleged H-1B visa abuses.
- The “Public Charge Rule” of 2019, which already made it harder for immigrants using public benefits to gain permanent residency.
- The “Remain in Mexico” policy for asylum seekers.
Potential Impact on Global Applicants
The immediate fallout of this directive could be seen among applicants from developing countries, where rates of diabetes, heart disease, and obesity have risen sharply. For many aspiring immigrants, these conditions are manageable and do not prevent full-time employment—but under the new policy, they could be grounds for rejection.Medical experts have also voiced concern that this rule could discourage applicants from disclosing their medical conditions honestly, fearing that doing so would jeopardise their chances. This, they warn, could undermine the reliability of health screenings altogether.
For international students and professionals, the policy also introduces uncertainty. While the rule ostensibly targets immigrant visas, its language leaves room for interpretation—raising the possibility that even temporary visa holders could be affected.
A Step Backward for Humanitarian Values
Human rights groups have criticised the policy as inhumane and discriminatory, arguing that it goes against America’s historical role as a country of opportunity and inclusion. The decision, they say, reinforces a dangerous precedent where human worth is measured by health status and economic productivity.Several advocacy groups are now exploring legal challenges, arguing that the rule violates anti-discrimination provisions and international human rights standards.
“This is not about protecting American taxpayers—it’s about shutting the door on those who need help the most,” said a representative of the Human Rights First organisation. “It reduces human beings to economic liabilities.”
Next Story