Bill Introduced to Address Fraud in Federal Lifeline Program

On Thursday, federal lawmakers presented a bill designed to tackle suspected fraud in a federal initiative that funds phone and internet services for deceased individuals.

Senator Joni Ernst from Iowa is focusing on the Lifeline program, which offers subsidies to low-income Americans. This move comes after allegations emerged that California improperly claimed $3.8 million from 2020 to 2025 related to 94,000 individuals who had passed away.

“Californians are taxed even after they’re gone, and the governor shouldn’t be able to deflect responsibility, particularly when healthcare providers help enroll deceased individuals in these federal programs,” Ernst remarked.

In a statement, Ernst expressed her intent to combat this issue head-on. “While some states overlook increasing fraud, I’m determined to put an end to it,” she commented, emphasizing the Lifeline program’s misuse, which has supposedly funneled around $5 million of taxpayer funds to nearly 117,000 deceased individuals.

Titled the No Lifeline to the Dead Act, the proposed legislation would mandate that all telecommunications companies use the federal National Verifier system to confirm the eligibility of participants before they can access the program. This would limit states from using their own eligibility systems instead of the federal one.

The Lifeline program aims to assist low-income households by subsidizing phone and internet services.

Ernst referenced a recent report from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) inspector general revealing that California had received about $3.8 million for nearly 94,000 deceased subscribers over the specified time span.

“I’m cutting off a ‘lifeline’ for the deceased because it’s unacceptable for these subsidies to exploit hardworking Americans who don’t need them,” Ernst stated.

While California has the highest number of questionable registrations, the FCC’s findings indicate other states, often characterized as “blue states,” might also be engaging in fraudulent behavior. Texas, controlled by Republicans, also noted significant gaps in verification processes and was permitted to opt out of using the federal National Verification Commission, choosing state-managed platforms instead. Oregon was another state mentioned in the report.

According to the report, about two-thirds of the 116,808 deceased individuals in the states that opted out had passed away after enrolling in the program.

In response, Governor Newsom’s office argued that the bill addresses issues that are not actually fraudulent. It stated, “The FCC acknowledged that most enrollees were eligible during their lives, and payments predominantly stem from delays in account closures.”

Ernst’s office contended that the bill would establish a national verification system permanently and prevent states from opting out in the future, asserting that enhanced federal oversight is essential to stop those who register deceased individuals for benefits funded by taxpayers.

Newsom’s representatives pointed out that deaths occurring during the enrollment process shouldn’t be viewed as fraud, but rather as a reality of managing a large public program that has supported millions over the years.

They noted, “You might expect Ms. Ernst, given her background as a funeral director, to be aware of this.”

Ernst is just the latest figure to weigh in on the ongoing controversy surrounding the Lifeline program.

In January, Brendan Carr, an FCC chairman, criticized California for being the leading offender among opt-out states amid the ongoing discussions about this alleged Lifeline scandal.

Newsom’s office swiftly countered Carr’s claims with a “fact check” that highlighted federal admissions about the majority of enrollees being eligible while alive.

The California Public Utilities Commission, responsible for overseeing the state’s Lifeline initiative, pushed back against the accusations as well. They stated that federal authorities recognized that most enrollees were eligible before their deaths and that improper payments were largely linked to administrative delays, not flaws in enrollment.

The Commission added, “We prioritize the integrity of our programs, but singling out California is misleading; this issue is national in scope and not merely a state-level problem.”