On May 28, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a "slip opinion" concluding that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Lifeline program—which helps low-income consumers pay for phone and broadband internet service—must comply with a 1996 federal welfare law that limits certain government benefits to U.S. citizens and specific categories of lawfully present non-citizens. The opinion also concludes that the FCC's current enrollment process does not adequately verify immigration status. If the FCC acts on this opinion in a proceeding it opened earlier this year, millions of current and prospective Lifeline subscribers could be affected.

Opinions of the OLC are just that—OLC’s view of legal issues. They are not binding on independent agencies like the FCC or on reviewing Courts. In fact, other recent OLC opinions on the same issue have been enjoined by the federal courts pending the outcome of litigation.

What is the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act?

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) [Pub. L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105] is a federal welfare reform law enacted by Congress during the Clinton administration. Among other things, PRWORA established restrictions on which non-citizens may receive federal benefits. The law reflects a congressional finding that federal benefit eligibility requirements prior to 1996 were inadequate to prevent non-citizens from relying on public resources. [8 U.S.C. § 1601(4)]

PRWORA creates two relevant categories of restricted benefits:

1. Federal public benefits are limited to U.S. citizens and "qualified aliens." [8 U.S.C. § 1611] "Qualified aliens" include lawful permanent residents, asylees, refugees, humanitarian parolees, persons granted withholding of removal, Cuban and Haitian entrants, resident aliens from Freely Associated States, and certain battered spouses and children under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. [8 U.S.C. § 1641(b)–(c); OLC Opinion, Section I.C]
2. Federal means-tested public benefits are subject to an additional restriction. Even qualified aliens are generally ineligible unless they have resided in the United States for at least five years with a qualified immigration status. [8 U.S.C. § 1613(a); OLC Opinion, Section I.C]

The law defines "Federal public benefit" broadly to include "any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States." [8 U.S.C. § 1611(c)(1)(B)] PRWORA does not separately define "Federal means-tested public benefit," but an earlier OLC opinion (issued December 16, 2025) rejected longstanding constructions of these provisions and reinterpreted the term to include any federal public benefit for which eligibility or benefit amount is determined based on income, resources, or financial need. [Interpretation of "Federal Means-Tested Benefit" in PRWORA, 49 Op. O.L.C. (Dec. 16, 2025), cited in OLC Opinion, Section I.C]

The Latest OLC Conclusion

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr asked the OLC two questions: (1) Does the Lifeline discount qualify as a "Federal public benefit" or a "Federal means-tested public benefit" under PRWORA? and (2) If so, does collecting a subscriber's SSN satisfy PRWORA's verification requirements?

1. Is Lifeline a Federal Benefit Under PRWORA?

Is Lifeline "welfare" or a "similar benefit"?

The OLC concluded that Lifeline is both a "Federal public benefit" and a "Federal means-tested public benefit." The OLC reasoned that the ordinary meaning of "welfare" is public assistance—usually in the form of direct payments or discounted services—for someone in financial need. OLC cited Black's Law Dictionary and Supreme Court precedent. Because Lifeline provides a discount on telephone and broadband service to consumers who qualify based on income or participation in other need-based programs, the OLC found it fits the definition. OLC also noted that both the FCC's own rules and the Supreme Court have already treated Lifeline as a public benefit.¹

Is Lifeline funded by "appropriated funds"?

Lifeline is funded by the FCC's Universal Service Fund (USF), which is collected from private carriers rather than directly from congressional appropriations. 

The OLC concluded that the USF is a "permanent, indefinite appropriation," citing positions held by the FCC, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).² OLC further noted that Congress has repeatedly exempted the USF from the Antideficiency Act—the law that generally prohibits spending beyond what Congress has appropriated—treating it legislatively as an appropriation.³ 

The OLC also argued that even if the USF were not a congressional appropriation, Lifeline benefits are "provided by an agency of the United States"—the FCC—because the FCC established, funds, and controls the program.

Is Lifeline "means-tested"?

The OLC found this straightforward: Lifeline is expressly limited to "qualifying low-income consumers," and eligibility is determined by income or participation in other income-based assistance programs. Every one of the qualifying federal assistance programs is itself conditioned on financial need.

2. Is Collecting a Social Security Number Enough?

The OLC concluded that collecting an SSN from a prospective enrollee, as FCC currently does, is insufficient to verify PRWORA compliance. The reason: non-citizens who are not "qualified aliens"—and qualified aliens who have not yet met the five-year residency requirement—may nonetheless be eligible to receive an SSN.

OLC concluded that the FCC "must impose additional safeguards to verify eligibility for Lifeline benefits." The OLC also identified one available tool: the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system—a federal, web-based database administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that is commonly used by federal agencies to verify immigration status. The OLC noted that the FCC could use SAVE, provided it adheres to a memorandum of agreement with USCIS governing data use.

What Does This Mean for Lifeline?

This opinion does not by itself change Lifeline enrollment rules. OLC opinions are legal guidance to executive branch agencies — they are not regulations and do not have the force of law on their own. However, earlier this year, the FCC opened a proceeding asking about Lifeline and PRWORA, collecting full SSNs, and use of the SAVE system. The FCC is still collecting public comments on its proposals (reply comments in the proceeding are due June 3, 2026) and new Lifeline rules could be voted on later this year.

This is the first time that the OLC has formally concluded that Lifeline is subject to PRWORA's immigration-based eligibility restrictions. The FCC's own rules already state that "Lifeline is a federal benefit" [47 C.F.R. § 54.410(d)(1)(i)], but prior to this opinion, neither the FCC nor any other executive branch authority appears to have required immigration status verification as a condition of Lifeline enrollment.

The slip opinion does not estimate how many current Lifeline subscribers could be affected by new PRWORA-based eligibility restrictions—nor does it address the timeline or process by which the FCC would be expected to act. The OLC also does not address what happens to currently enrolled subscribers who may not qualify under PRWORA. Those are significant implementation questions left entirely unaddressed.

The OLC's reference to SAVE is placed in a footnote rather than the body of the opinion. The footnote says the FCC "may use SAVE"—not that it must. This appears to leave room for the FCC to develop alternative verification mechanisms, though the FCC has already proposed using SAVE. Whether SAVE can handle the volume and timing demands of Lifeline's enrollment process—and whether its use would create barriers for eligible subscribers—is not discussed.

The Lifeline program currently serves approximately 8.06 million subscribers. The practical effect of PRWORA compliance requirements on that subscriber base depends on questions the OLC opinion does not consider or answer: specifically, what share of current subscribers are non-citizens, and of those, which would or would not meet PRWORA's "qualified alien" definition or the five-year residency requirement. If the FCC has that data, it has not shared it publicly.

What is clear is that the categories of non-citizens who would be affected include undocumented immigrants, certain lawfully present non-citizens who do not fall within PRWORA's definition of "qualified alien," and qualified aliens who have been in the country for fewer than five years. The program would remain available to U.S. citizens and to qualified aliens who meet the five-year residency requirement—regardless of those individuals' income levels, so long as they meet Lifeline's existing financial eligibility criteria.

Notes

1. 47 C.F.R. § 54.410(d)(1)(i); FCC v. Consumers' Research, 145 S. Ct. 2482, 2500 (2025); OLC Opinion, Section II.A
2. GAO-24-10697, Administration of Universal Service Programs, at 7 (July 2024); FCC Agency Financial Report: Fiscal Year 2025, at 63 (Dec. 8, 2025); OMB Letter to FCC General Counsel, Apr. 18, 2018
3. Universal Service Antideficiency Temporary Suspension Act, Pub. L. No. 108-494 (2004); Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, Pub. L. No. 119-75, § 510

Additional Reading

• How the Trump Administration is Narrowing the Path to Lifeline, Part I: The One Big Beautiful Bill
• How the Trump Administration is Narrowing the Path to Lifeline, Part II: The FCC
• FCC to Vote to Open New Lifeline Proceeding
• Chairman Carr Sees Dead People
• What the Inspector General Found Out About Lifeline
• What Did the FCC Just Do to California?

The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society is a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring that all people in the U.S. have access to competitive, High-Performance Broadband regardless of where they live or who they are. We believe communication policy - rooted in the values of access, equity, and diversity - has the power to deliver new opportunities and strengthen communities.

© Benton Institute for Broadband & Society 2026. Redistribution of this email publication - both internally and externally - is encouraged if it includes this copyright statement.

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, please email headlinesATbentonDOTorg

Kevin Taglang
Executive Editor, Communications-related Headlines
Benton Institute
for Broadband & Society
1041 Ridge Rd, Unit 214
Wilmette, IL 60091
847-220-4531
headlines AT benton DOT org

Share this edition:

Broadband Delivers Opportunities and Strengthens Communities