The federal government is finding more ways to make daily life harder for immigrants and their families. A new rule they’ve proposed would increase the cost of becoming a citizen by 75%.
The proposed rule will be open for public comment for 60 days. Comments are due on August 24th.
The goal of this change is to make it so that fewer people can become Americans.
This rule is about changes to the filing fees for two forms. N-400s are Applications for Naturalization. N-336s are Requests for a Hearing on a Decision in a Naturalization Proceeding, which allow applicants to seek a review of a denied application.
Under this rule, online filing fees for N-400s would increase from $710 to $1,280 (+80%) and the cost of a paper filing for an N-400 would go up from $760 to $1,330 (+75%).
For N-336, the cost of an online form would increase from $830 to $1,475 (+78%) and the cost of a paper filing would go from $780 to $1,425 (+83%).
The proposed rule further eliminates the availability of fee waivers and ends the reduced fee option for Form N-400.
Naturalization is more than just a status change. It’s a declaration of belonging.
Becoming a citizen opens up opportunities for immigrants that they wouldn’t have otherwise. It allows people to have their voice heard by voting and shaping their communities. And at a time when the federal government is detaining and deporting many immigrants, it offers safety and security.
By increasing the cost to become a citizen, the Trump administration is trying to keep immigrants from exercising their rights, while restricting who can be an American to the wealthiest few.
We’ve fought back against these fee increases during the first Trump administration — and we’ll do it again.
Join us in this fight. Submit a public comment today and tell USCIS not to raise naturalization fees.
Take Action
Step 1: Write a public comment.
We’ve set up the comment generator below to help you get started. However, the most impactful public comments are personalized. Share your story, expertise, and concerns in your comment.
Step 2: Submit your comment.
After you edit your comment, copy it and submit it on regulations.gov. Comments can be submitted anonymously, but you do need an email address.
Comments are due by August 24.
Keep reading to learn more about public comments.
Public Comment 101
When federal agencies change policies, they must allow the public to comment on how this will affect them. Typically, this means the public gets 30 to 60 days to submit comments.
Comments are important for two key reasons:
First, they give the agency more information and insight as to how the regulations will affect them. In previous administrations, for agencies staffed by people who care about the impact of their work on communities, this is a critical step to gather information.
Second, comments are public record. Even if the agency ignores the comments and enacts the rule anyway, an ensuing lawsuit can use the comments as proof that the agency did not take public will into account.
Anyone can submit a comment – including people who are not citizens yet.
The one thing you do need is an email address.
The most effective comments are the ones that you make your own. The best comments share how this rule change affects you, your family, or someone you know. Share your story and personalize your comments.
Be clear about the specific harm caused be a rule change you’re opposing.
Also know duplicative comments will be deleted, so only submit your comment once.
Finally, your voice matters. Submitting a public comment is one way to have yours heard.
Step 1: Write your comment. For the rules listed below, we have comment generators that can help, but feel free to make it your own!
Step 2: Submit your comment on regulations.gov. Copy your comment from the generator, make any edits you’d like, and then submit it as an individual.
Sample Public Comments
Need some more inspiration?
Here are some actual comments that were submitted opposing these fee increases. Note that they are all different lengths, and they each sound unique.
Example 1:
The audacity of this government to nearly double the application fee for citizenship while simultaneously eliminating fee waivers. This is unconscionable.
Freedom may not be free, but it also should not be built on the backs of the poor and the vulnerable.
This fee increase is beyond anything that could be necessary to cover the costs of the application or account for inflation. Even if it were, eliminating the fee waiver circumvents the role of government in making these kinds of applications accessible.
Example 2:
I strongly oppose the proposed increase in N-400 naturalization filing fees and the elimination or limitation of fee waiver opportunities for applicants seeking U.S. citizenship.
Naturalization should remain accessible to individuals who have lived in the United States for years, contributed to their communities, paid taxes, raised families, and followed the legal process to become citizens. Many applicants pursuing naturalization are elderly individuals living on fixed incomes such as SSI and other limited retirement benefits. These individuals often struggle to cover basic living expenses and still make the effort to complete the final step toward becoming U.S. citizens.
Raising the filing fees while removing the possibility of requesting a fee waiver creates an unnecessary financial barrier for some of the most vulnerable members of our communities. Citizenship should not become unattainable simply because someone cannot afford higher costs.
If the goal is to encourage lawful permanent residents to naturalize and fully participate in civic life, policies should support accessibility and affordability—not create additional obstacles. Individuals who meet eligibility requirements and demonstrate financial hardship should continue to have a meaningful opportunity to request fee assistance.
Naturalization represents commitment, belonging, and participation in our country. Access to that opportunity should remain within reach for those who have worked hard to earn it.
Example 3:
Our ancestors, many of them immigrants, would be appalled at this proposal.