In 1974, Congress created the Legal Services Corporation to connect lower-income Americans involved in civil disputes with free legal help. The law that established the agency stipulated that authorization for its funding would expire in 1980, when lawmakers were required to vote on whether to keep it alive.
They never did. Still, Congress has funded LSC every year since. In fiscal 2025, its 51st year, LSC’s 135 employees will spend 95% of its now $560 million annual budget paying legal groups to represent Americans in cases such as eviction, domestic violence, and disputes over government benefits, according to Ron Flagg, the agency’s president since 2020.
“LSC would welcome reauthorization,” Flagg said. “We haven’t hidden from it. Every budget cycle, we go through an exhaustive process before Congress appropriates funds — dozens of meetings with leaders of both parties. We demonstrate our return on investment, how we help 2 million Americans get life-saving legal help.”
The Legal Services Corp. now stands as America’s oldest “Zombie” program, but it’s far from unique. At a time when the Trump administration is moving aggressively to scale back government, including eliminating the entire Education Department, it’s sobering to note that 1,503 agencies or programs live on despite expired authorizations, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Another 155 will expire on Sept. 30. The Zombies, nearly half of which have been officially dead for more than a decade, persist in a budgetary netherworld. In a deep dive last year, CBO analysts were able to find dollar amounts for 491 of the programs, with total expenditures of $516 billion. They don’t know how much funding the other programs received.
The total federal budget in 2024 was $6.8 trillion, meaning expired Zombie programs take up at least 8% of the budget, and likely much more.
“A lot of programs don’t get reauthorized because Congress is okay with how they’re operating,” said Josh Huder, former congressional staffer now at the Georgetown University Government Affairs Institute. “They continue to get annual appropriations because most members think they’re worthwhile.”
Many Zombie programs now soak up far more funding than lawmakers originally envisioned. The Federal Election Commission, for example, was expected to spend $9.4 million per year before its authorization expired in 1981. Yet the agency continued to receive funding and spent $95 million in 2024, auditors at government watchdog Open The Books found. The Federal Communications Commission was originally allocated $339.6 million per year. Its funding authorization expired in 2020, yet it spent $28.4 billion last year.
Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency hasn’t addressed the Zombies that are prowling the federal spreadsheets. Given DOGE’s headlong push to first root out alleged waste, fraud, and abuse and ask questions later, experts say, Zombies may offer a ripe target.
“One could imagine that if DOGE is clued into the notion of expired authorizations, they’ll think a program is defunct,” said Sarah Binder, senior fellow at Brookings and professor of political science at George Washington University. She said this would be a mistake. “If Congress is still appropriating money to the programs, they’re not Zombies. They’re living, breathing agencies.”
Binder says the fault lies not with the agencies, some of which have become important enough to be household names, but Congress. Lawmakers have made it so difficult to accomplish their most fundamental tasks, such as funding the government for another year, that they hardly ever get around to doing other important things, such as reauthorizing existing programs.
The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, for example, expired in 2003. Yet in 2024, Congress spent $38.4 billion on 24 of the law’s programs, allowing legislators to influence the White House’s foreign policy and security assistance to other nations.
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, now led by Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY), supported the funding of 346 expired programs, more than any other committee, the CBO found. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, now chaired by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), spent more identifiable money than any other group: $153.5 billion.
“Congress’ job doesn’t stop when they allocate the money,” said Casey Burgat, professor at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management. “They have to oversee it. And when they fail to do that they open themselves up to somebody else doing that. In this case, an aggressive executive branch in the form of DOGE.”
Of the 1,503 agencies or programs, 22 remain alive that required a reauthorization vote as long ago as the 1980s, according to the CBO. In addition to the Legal Services Corp., whose authorization expired in 1980, and the FEC (a 1981 reauthorization deadline), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, which oversees the country’s power grids (1984) and the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, whose data informs U.S. policymaking (1984), are among the Zombies pushing middle age.
Congress has appropriated annual funding for EIA since its inception in 1977, the agency said in an emailed statement. “Subsequent legislation has continued to direct EIA to conduct data collection, analysis and dissemination activities consistent with our mission as the nation’s premier source of energy information.” Spokespeople for the FEC, FERC, and the CBO declined to comment.
Another Zombie, the U.S. African Development Foundation – whose authorization expired in 1987 – made headlines earlier this month when its officials blocked DOGE staff from entering their offices in Washington.
Congress has a history of denying or skipping reauthorizations. In the 1980s and 90s, former North Carolina Republican Sen. Jesse Helms became famous for holding up authorizations of the State Department, which he often found insufficiently vigilant against Communism. The frequent flare-ups between Helms and the diplomats of State earned him the nickname “Senator No.” And NASA, the widely respected space program, recently went through periods of time when Congress funded it but didn’t reauthorize it.
The CBO’s list of 1,000-plus agencies and programs with expired reauthorization deadlines offers a window into the variety and volume of federal government activity, from grants to remove lead from drinking water and protect against radon to collecting statistics on prison rape. Lawmakers seem to be nursing a mild obsession with fish. Over the years, they’ve funded without reauthorization a herring study, for instance, and programs to help Atlantic striped bass and tuna thrive. It seems part of a larger interest in wildlife, which includes conservation programs for elephants, rhinos, and tigers and the control and eradication of the venomous brown tree snake, an invasive pest infamous for devouring a scary chunk of Guam’s bird population.
Environmental and health programs populate the list, from monitoring water quality at beaches and the Energy Star appliance program to medical care for children with asthma and funding for the National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities. There are also provisions for improving airport security, protection for railroad first responders, and working capital for the Department of Homeland Security. Like a cherry on top, there’s also funding for the Office of Government Ethics.
Congress, whose 29% job-approval rating in February was the highest in four years, would probably “have a hard time assembling a list of programs that they’ve authorized,” said Burgat of George Washington University. “It’s a power void.”
‘Congress Doesn’t Have the Time’
‘DOGE steps into that vacuum with constitutional limitations. In 1974, Congress enacted the Impoundment Control Act, which prohibits presidents from refusing to spend the money that Congress allocates.
The Trump administration has challenged the constitutionality of the impoundment law, and DOGE is an ongoing test of the separation of powers between the legislative branch and the executive.
“Authorizations and appropriations are both law,” said Brookings’ Binder. “As long as Congress is voting to spend money on these programs, it would be an impoundment to close them. It would be unconstitutional.”
To remedy the situation, Congress would have to go through the list of Zombies and decide whether to reauthorize each one, a tedious process that evidently has hovered nowhere near the top of its priority list. “Congress doesn’t have the time to do good institutional housecleaning,” Binder said. “There are a lot of little programs, but also a good deal of big ones. They don’t have the capacity to keep tabs on the authorizations.”
For now, Ron Flagg of Legal Services Corp. waits with a cautious optimism, wary about how DOGE will perceive his agency but confident that after a half century, LSC has the ability to stand up for itself.
“During the first Trump administration we got a raise in money because Congress members don’t view our work as a partisan issue,” Flagg said. “LSC has an ability to go to Congress with the facts. We publish grants, we tell you how many people were served and how many cases were closed and how technology has been advanced and how funding has been leveraged by volunteers. We’re able to make those points to Congress as part as the annual funding process.
“I’m not sure other agencies have the same ability to advocate for the quality of their work.”
Bypass Big Tech Censors
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.