Full Breakdown
Legislation Targets Alleged Fraud in Lifeline Program
2/27/2026, 9:12:31 AM
Overview of the Legislation
On February 26, 2026, U.S. Senator Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa, introduced the “No Lifeline for Dead People Act,” aimed at addressing alleged fraud within the federal Lifeline program. This program subsidizes phone and internet services for low-income Americans. Ernst's legislation comes in response to a report from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) inspector general, which indicated that California received approximately $3.8 million between 2020 and 2025 for services provided to nearly 94,000 deceased individuals.
Key Provisions of the Bill
The proposed legislation mandates that all telecommunications carriers utilize the federal government’s National Verifier system to confirm eligibility before enrolling recipients in the Lifeline program. This requirement would eliminate states' ability to use their own eligibility systems, thereby increasing federal oversight. Ernst criticized the current situation, stating, “These subsidies cannot continue to R.I.P. off hardworking Americans, so I’m cutting off ‘Lifeline’ for dead people – they don’t need it anyway.”
Responses from California Officials
California Governor Gavin Newsom's office responded critically to Ernst's bill, asserting that the majority of the deceased subscribers were eligible for the program while alive. They emphasized that the payments made were largely due to delays in account closures following a subscriber's death, rather than failures in the enrollment process. A spokesperson from Newsom's office stated, “People pass away while enrolled in Lifeline. That’s not fraud, that’s the reality of administering a large public program serving millions of Americans over many years.”
Broader Implications and Context
While California was highlighted as the state with the largest share of questionable enrollments, the FCC report also identified verification gaps in other states, including Texas and Oregon. Ernst's office argued that the bill is necessary to prevent fraudsters from exploiting the system, indicating a need for stronger federal oversight across the Lifeline program.
Criticism of the Bill
Critics, including officials from California's Public Utilities Commission (PUC), contend that the characterization of the situation as a fraud scandal is misleading. They argue that the issue is not unique to California and reflects a nationwide challenge in managing the Lifeline program. The PUC stated, “We take program integrity seriously. But it’s misleading — and political — to single out California. This is a nationwide issue, not a California scandal.”
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
There is a discrepancy in the interpretation of the FCC report's findings. While Ernst's office emphasizes the need for reform due to alleged fraud, Newsom's office maintains that the majority of payments were justified based on eligibility at the time of enrollment. This divergence highlights the complexities involved in administering large-scale public assistance programs.
Verbatim Quotes
- “While blue states are turning a blind eye to festering fraud, I’m working to stop it dead in its tracks,” — Senator Joni Ernst
- “People pass away while enrolled in Lifeline. That’s not fraud, that’s the reality of administering a large public program serving millions of Americans over many years,” — Spokesperson for Governor Gavin Newsom
- “This is a nationwide issue, not a California scandal,” the commission said.” — California Public Utilities Commission
