Background
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is a federal grant program that helps approximately 6 million households annually pay their heating and cooling bills. Established in 1981, the program has historically received bipartisan support for creating a critical safety net for vulnerable Americans facing energy insecurity. With residential electricity prices increasing by 6.2 percent over the last 12 months, LIHEAP is becoming increasingly relevant. This price increase is especially pressing for low-income households, who spend approximately three times more of their income on energy.
Despite rising costs, the LIHEAP program faces multiple threats. Federal actions in the past year have weakened the program. In April 2025, all federal LIHEAP staff were eliminated. The following month, the Trump administration’s FY2026 budget proposal allocated zero dollars to the program, effectively proposing its complete dissolvement. Most recently, in October 2025, federal government shutdowns delayed the distribution of LIHEAP funds, leaving millions of families uncertain about their ability to heat their homes in the winter.
Program Structure and Eligibility
LIHEAP operates through a federal-state partnership, where the federal government provides block grants to states, allowing them to then administer their own programs under federal guidelines. For example, states must submit an annual state plan application to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary to receive funding. These guidelines also determine who qualifies for assistance from each states’ program.
One of the primary federal eligibility guidelines is income. Applicants’ household income must fall below 150 percent of the federal poverty level—$23,475 for a one-person household—or 60 percent of their state’s median income to qualify. Priority goes to households with the highest energy costs relative to their income, ensuring that the most vulnerable families receive assistance first. In 2024, 78 percent of the program’s users were older adults and individuals with disabilities; the primary assisted service type was heating, which made up 69 percent of all services (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Administration for Children and Families (ACF), 2024
Program Assistance
The average heating assistance benefit is estimated to be $662 per household annually, though amounts vary significantly by state due to varied local energy costs and state funding. For example, in FY 2025 State LIHEAP Plans, heating assistance ranges from $50-$475 in Arkansas, where electricity costs an average of 12.32 cents/kWh. In California, however, assistance ranges from $94-$1,500 because electricity costs are nearly double at 24.23 cents/kWh. The program also provides crisis assistance for emergency situations such as utility shutoffs or heating system failures, helping families avoid dangerous living conditions during extreme weather.
Despite its importance, LIHEAP has traditionally been underfunded. Research indicates the program was underfunded by 10-20% in 2021, leaving a large percentage of potentially eligible households without assistance even before the current funding crisis.
Arguments for Maintaining LIHEAP
Decreases Disproportionate Energy Burden on Low-income Families
Energy insecurity—which, as supporters point out, primarily affects low-income households—leaves families struggling to afford adequate heating, cooling, and electricity, and more. As a result, people often resort to unsafe strategies to reduce energy usage and avoid disconnection. They may accrue debt, forgo expenses on food, or resort to dangerous heating alternatives. One common alternative, using ovens or stoves for heat, produces carbon monoxide—a deadly, odorless gas that causes approximately 400 deaths in the U.S. annually. Another method, space heaters, accounts for one-third of home heating fires. For these reasons, advocates contend LIHEAP is a critical program that offers dignity to low-income households.
Improves Public Health and Safety
Without adequate heating, indoor temperatures can drop to dangerous levels—during the 2021 Texas winter storm, they went as low as 39-43°F despite the state’s typically mild climate. In colder states with more severe winter weather, indoor temperatures without heat can drop even lower, significantly increasing the risk of hypothermia. Conversely, without adequate cooling, indoor heat index levels can exceed 120°F during heat waves—an unfortunate reality in Chicago homes without air conditioning during the 2023 heatwave—putting residents at severe risk of heat stroke and death.
According to the CDC, more than 1,300 Americans die each year from heat-related causes, and over 19,000 Americans have died from cold-related causes since 1979. Low-income individuals who cannot afford adequate heating or cooling are particularly vulnerable, as energy-insecure households may experience lower life expectancies or premature death in extreme circumstances. Proponents point to these statistics to argue that LIHEAP works to counteract the dangers of inadequate heating and cooling, preventing death and illness among the nation’s most vulnerable populations.
Arguments for Eliminating LIHEAP
Minimizes Unnecessary Federal Spending
The core argument that has emerged against LIHEAP—championed by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—is that lower energy prices are expected in coming years, which would reduce the need for the program. However, many supporters of the program argue that this reasoning contradicts available evidence. They point to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s projection that residential energy prices will continue to rise in much of the country through at least 2026.
Amid concerns about minimizing federal spending, opponents believe that LIHEAP is an unnecessary expenditure. In fiscal year 2024, LIHEAP received approximately $4.1 billion in funding, representing roughly 0.06 percent of the $6.8 trillion in total federal outlays. Further arguments for eliminating federal assistance programs typically include concerns about financial inefficiency and budget deficits, the potential to create dependency and disincentivize work, and the belief that states, not the federal government, should manage social assistance.
Conclusion
The proposal to eliminate LIHEAP reflects differing views on federal energy assistance. The administration cites expectations of declining energy prices in coming years, while federal projections show energy price increases through 2026. Eliminating $4.1 billion in annual funding would affect about 6 million households—78 percent of them with older adults and individuals with disabilities—requiring states to absorb costs or reduce services.
Looking to the future, some advocacy groups are calling for all levels of government to support maximizing funding for LIHEAP and develop and implement comprehensive heat resilience strategies that extend beyond the program. More specifically, they have recommended putting LIHEAP on a path toward annual appropriations of $40 billion, as envisioned in the Heating and Cooling Relief Act (H.R.893/S.405). However, the future of the program remains uncertain as it faces resistance from those who contend that it is an unnecessary use of taxpayer money.