The Cost of Fraud and Undocumented Immigration in Minnesota (2016–2026)
Introduction
Over the past decade, Minnesota has grappled with significant fraud in public assistance programs and controversies over resources spent on undocumented immigrants. This analysis examines fraudulent misuse of taxpayer funds in Minnesota (with a focus on 2016–2026) and public spending on undocumented vs. legal residents vs. native-born citizens. We then explore how these diverted resources could have benefited Minnesota’s citizens – from improving infrastructure and schools to bolstering social programs – and propose solutions to restore trust and efficiency in public spending.
Fraud in Minnesota’s Public Assistance Programs (2016–2026)
Minnesota has seen a “remarkable cascade of fraud scandals” in recent years. Multiple social service programs – at both state and local levels – fell victim to organized scams, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer losses. Key fraud cases include:
Child Care Assistance Program (Daycare Fraud): In 2018, local media alleged rampant fraud in Minnesota’s subsidized childcare program, claiming it cost taxpayers up to $100 million annually. A state Legislative Auditor review found no evidence to substantiate a $100 million/year figure, but did confirm that fraud was occurring on a serious scale. Minnesota prosecutors proved at least $5–6 million in daycare subsidy fraud through a dozen prosecutions (2013–2018), though investigators believe the true fraud level was much higher. The schemes typically involved daycare centers overbilling for children who never attended, exploiting lax oversight. In late 2023, a Minneapolis-based YouTuber’s viral video reignited concerns by alleging many daycare centers in the city were empty while billing the state. While subsequent state inspections did not find outright “ghost” centers, the episode prompted federal authorities to freeze $185 million in child care funds to Minnesota pending further verification. This illustrates the depth of concern around childcare fraud under Mayor Jacob Frey’s watch in Minneapolis, though the program is administered at the state level.
Feeding Our Future (Free Food Program Fraud): Perhaps the most shocking case was the Feeding Our Future scandal during the COVID-19 era. This non-profit claimed to distribute federally funded meals to children but instead siphoned off an estimated $250 million through fake meal counts and kickbacks. At least 78 individuals were charged and over 50 convicted in what DOJ called “the largest pandemic relief fraud scheme” in America. Minnesota’s Department of Education initially raised red flags, but after the group sued the state claiming discrimination, oversight was eased and the fraud exploded. Prosecutors say the $250 million stolen was spent on luxury cars, real estate, vacations, and even wired overseas – money that should have fed hungry children. Governor Tim Walz faced intense scrutiny for this fraud occurring under his administration’s watch. He has since acknowledged the “fraud problem could stretch into the billions” across Minnesota’s aid programs, even as he disputed a specific estimate of $9 billion in fraud (a figure derived from one prosecutor’s extreme allegations). The Feeding Our Future case alone shows how a lack of proper oversight can lead to massive theft of public funds.
Medicaid and Related Social Services Fraud: Beyond childcare and food programs, federal and state investigators have uncovered scams in various Medicaid-funded services in Minnesota:
Housing Stabilization Services (HSS): A new program launched in 2020 to help vulnerable individuals find housing was overrun by fraud. The program had “low barriers to entry”, allowing sham providers to enroll clients and bill for nonexistent services. Spending blew up from a projected $2.6 million per year to over $100 million in 2024. In one scheme, out-of-state fraudsters engaged in “fraud tourism,” traveling to Minnesota to steal millions via fake billings. By late 2024, Minnesota officials shut down the HSS program entirely due to “large-scale fraud”.
Early Intensive Developmental Behavioral Intervention (Autism Services): Fraudsters created fake autism therapy providers, enrolled children with false diagnoses, and billed Medicaid for therapy never provided. At least $14 million was stolen in an autism services scam, and some perpetrators overlapped with the Feeding Our Future ring. One individual pleaded guilty to both the autism fraud and the food program fraud.
Integrated Community Supports (ICS): Another Medicaid program (launched 2021) saw explosive spending growth from $4.6 million in 2021 to $170 million in 2024, with indications of extensive false billing for unprovided services. As of early 2026, audits are ongoing; 14 Medicaid-related programs in Minnesota are now deemed “high risk” for fraud.
Collectively, these cases paint a troubling picture. By one allegation, “half or more” of roughly $18 billion in Medicaid funds supporting 14 state-run programs since 2018 may have been stolen. (This would imply up to ~$9 billion lost to fraud – a figure Governor Walz has disputed as too high.) Nonetheless, it is clear that fraudulent actors exploited Minnesota’s generous social programs on a grand scale during the 2016–2026 period. At least 92 people have been charged and 62 convicted in federal investigations of Minnesota welfare fraud schemes in just the last few years. These scandals have drawn national attention: Congress opened an oversight investigation into Minnesota’s mismanagement of funds, even subpoenaing Gov. Walz to testify.
In summary, under the leadership of Gov. Tim Walz (2019–present) – and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey (2018–present) at the city level – Minnesota has seen tens, possibly hundreds, of millions of taxpayer dollars lost to fraud. This money was meant to support low-income children, seniors, and vulnerable families. Instead, it was pocketed by fraudsters or wasted due to lax oversight. The human cost is real: Fraud in the child care program, for example, “exploits four sets of victims: the children, parents, those on waiting lists, and taxpayers”. Every dollar stolen is a dollar not available for legitimate needs.
Public Spending on Undocumented Immigrants vs. Legal Residents and Citizens
Minnesota is also debating the cost of providing services to undocumented immigrants. The state’s population includes a substantial immigrant community, and a growing share are undocumented. As of 2023, an estimated 130,000 unauthorized immigrants live in Minnesota (about 2.2% of the state’s population), up by 40,000 since 2019 due to recent migration trends. This means roughly a quarter of Minnesota’s half-million immigrants are undocumented, while the other 75% are legal immigrants or refugees. In broad terms:
Native-born Minnesotans: ~5.2 million (≈90% of state population in 2023).
Legal Immigrants (naturalized citizens, green-card holders, refugees, etc.): ~390,000 (≈7% of population).
Undocumented Immigrants: ~130,000 (≈2–2.5% of population).
Spending on Undocumented vs. Others
Unlike fraud, which is illicit, spending on undocumented immigrants occurs through policy choices – often controversially. Minnesota in recent years has expanded some benefits to undocumented residents, even as critics question the costs. Key areas include:
K–12 Education: By federal law, all children are entitled to public education regardless of immigration status. Minnesota therefore educates undocumented K–12 students at public expense. The largest fiscal cost of undocumented immigration is K–12 schooling. One analysis estimated Minnesota spends about $712.5 million per year on education for undocumented children (and U.S.-born children of undocumented parents), including additional costs like English language learning and free lunch programs. This figure comes from a 2023 study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which calculated the total annual fiscal burden of illegal immigration on Minnesota taxpayers at $877.5 million. About 81% of that cost ($712M) was K–12 education and related expenses, with the rest for healthcare, public assistance, law enforcement, and other services. (It works out to an average cost of ~$4,700 per undocumented individual per year in Minnesota.) Note: Some experts argue such estimates don’t account for taxes undocumented immigrants pay or the economic contributions they make, but it is a useful gauge of public expenditures.
Healthcare (MinnesotaCare Expansion and Emergency Services): In 2023, Minnesota’s Democratic-led legislature made undocumented adults eligible for MinnesotaCare, the state’s subsidized health insurance program for low-income residents. This was a landmark (and contentious) policy change, since undocumented people are ineligible for federal Medicaid funds – meaning the state must fully fund their coverage. Initial projections assumed ~7,700 enrollees and $196 million cost over 4 years, but take-up far exceeded expectations. By April 2025, 17,396 undocumented individuals had enrolled – more than double the forecast – pushing the 4-year cost to an estimated $550 million. Governor Walz’s administration quietly implemented this coverage on January 1, 2025, but amid budget pressures and public outcry, the program was repealed for adults within a year. As a result, about 15,000 undocumented adults will lose MinnesotaCare coverage after 2025 (children under 18 remain eligible). This episode shows that providing healthcare to undocumented residents can carry significant costs: roughly $550 million of state funds were allocated to cover ~17k people, since no federal match was available. Critics note that every dollar spent on non-citizens’ healthcare is a dollar not available for citizen needs, especially during a budget deficit. On the other hand, supporters argued that many enrollees paid premiums and that preventive care is cheaper than emergency care. Aside from MinnesotaCare, undocumented immigrants can receive emergency medical care (covered by Emergency Medicaid) and some limited state-funded services, but they are ineligible for most regular Medicaid and Medicare. Approximately 36,000 undocumented Minnesotans were uninsured before this expansion, highlighting the demand for health services. The short-lived MinnesotaCare expansion under Walz became a flashpoint in the debate over spending on undocumented residents.
Housing Assistance: Officially, undocumented immigrants have limited eligibility for public housing and housing subsidies – federal law generally restricts these benefits to citizens and certain legal residents. However, many mixed-status families (e.g. undocumented parents with U.S.-born children) do receive housing assistance, with the subsidy prorated to cover only eligible members. Minnesota does not publish a specific dollar figure for housing aid to undocumented individuals. There is, however, a broader cost when shelter systems and emergency housing are strained. For instance, if an influx of asylum-seekers or undocumented workers increases demand for shelters, state and local governments may spend more on homelessness services. (Minnesota is not a border state, so it hasn’t seen large migrant influxes like New York or Texas, but it has welcomed refugees and secondary migrants.) In 2022–2023, Minneapolis and St. Paul experienced rising homeless encampments and shelter needs, though these are driven by many factors beyond immigration. Bottom line: Direct spending on housing specifically for undocumented immigrants in Minnesota appears to be minimal or not distinctly tracked. Any costs are mainly indirect (emergency shelter use, etc.). The state did shut down a fraud-ridden housing program (HSS) in 2024, but that program’s intent was to help disabled Minnesotans find housing, not undocumented people – the irony is that out-of-state scammers looted it.
“Driver’s Licenses for All” Program: In October 2023, Minnesota implemented Driver’s Licenses for All, allowing undocumented residents to obtain standard driver’s licenses. This reversed a 2003 ban and was billed as a public safety measure (ensuring all drivers are licensed and insured). The new law made an estimated 81,000 undocumented Minnesotans eligible for licenses or permits. Financial impact: The program’s costs are mainly administrative (updating systems, processing more applications) and were relatively modest. In fact, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety anticipated the influx of new applicants would generate additional license fee revenue that largely offset implementation costs. For example, county DMVs saw a surge of written test takers (up 44% post-implementation) as people applied for licenses. Each new license brings in fee revenue (~$40 per license), so any net fiscal cost to the state is likely low. However, opponents frame the issue differently: they argue there’s an intangible cost in extending privileges to those here illegally, potentially encouraging more illegal immigration. Proponents counter that licensed undocumented drivers will buy insurance and reduce accidents and hit-and-run costs. In summary, providing driver’s licenses to undocumented residents has not required a large government expenditure, but it symbolizes resources and political capital spent on non-citizens’ integration, which some Minnesotans feel should be focused on citizens instead.
It’s worth noting that while undocumented immigrants do impose costs on state and local governments (education, some healthcare, law enforcement, etc.), they also contribute through taxes and labor. In 2019, undocumented workers in Minnesota paid an estimated $83 million in state and local taxes (sales, income, property taxes). They fill critical jobs in agriculture, food processing, and services. These aspects are part of the policy debate, but from a strictly fiscal perspective, studies like FAIR’s conclude that taxpayer costs outweigh tax contributions, resulting in a net burden on native-born residents. Minnesota’s experience underscores that when policymakers expanded benefits to undocumented populations (driver’s licenses, health coverage), actual participation often exceeded expectations, meaning higher spending than initially planned.
Opportunity Costs: What Could “Lost” Funds Have Accomplished?
When fraud siphons away hundreds of millions of dollars – or when large sums are spent on non-citizens – it’s natural to ask: What could that money have done for Minnesota’s own citizens, if used differently? The opportunity costs are stark. We consider a few areas where these funds could have made a major impact:
Infrastructure (Roads & Power Grid): Minnesota’s infrastructure needs are urgent. The state’s civil engineers rate overall infrastructure a mediocre “C” grade, and roads in particular face a massive funding shortfall. Minnesota is underfunding road and bridge maintenance by about $885 million per year, leaving a $17.7 billion gap over 20 years. Coincidentally, this is almost the same amount ($877 million) that Minnesota taxpayers spend annually on costs related to undocumented immigrants. In other words, the yearly money spent on those in the state illegally could nearly cover Minnesota’s entire road repair deficit. If fraud and improper payments in state programs were eliminated, the savings (potentially in the billions) could be invested in rebuilding aging bridges, repaving highways, and modernizing the electric grid. Upgraded power lines and grid infrastructure are needed to improve reliability and support clean energy – critical after recent storms and in the face of climate change. For example, $250 million (the amount stolen in the Feeding Our Future scam) could finance a significant grid resilience project or replace thousands of lead water pipes. Redirecting these funds to infrastructure would create jobs and lasting public benefits, instead of lining fraudsters’ pockets.
Education: Minnesota’s education system could greatly benefit from additional funding. Many school districts struggle with tight budgets, large class sizes, and teacher shortages. Nationally, public schools are underinvesting in facilities by an estimated $85–90 billion per year – leaking roofs, outdated HVAC, and unsafe structures plague many districts. Minnesota is no exception; rural schools in particular often lack tax base for upgrades. If the money lost to fraud schemes were available, Minnesota could renovate aging school buildings, expand vocational training programs, or hire and retain more teachers (helping ease the teacher shortage). Consider that over $100 million was stolen in one year from the HSS housing program alone – that sum could have raised per-pupil spending or funded hundreds of classroom aide positions. Furthermore, if resources devoted to undocumented populations were redirected, they might bolster programs for native-born and legally-residing students. (Notably, Minneapolis Public Schools have enrolled many recent immigrant children, including English learners, straining budgets – while at the same time, the district is seeing overall enrollment declines.) There is also an equity consideration: some American students go without proper meals or tutoring while funds intended for such services are fraudulently diverted. Every $1 million recovered from fraud could, for instance, provide 1,000 needy students with $1,000 tutoring scholarships each. The comparisons are powerful.
Social Programs and Homelessness: Minnesota has thousands of its own citizens in need. On a single night in 2023, 8,393 Minnesotans were homeless statewide (a figure that rose about 10% in 2024). These include veterans, families, and seniors sleeping in shelters or on the streets. Imagine if the $877 million annual cost of illegal immigration in Minnesota were instead used to combat homelessness – it equates to roughly $104,000 for every homeless person in the state. In theory, that’s enough to provide housing and supportive services to virtually end homelessness in Minnesota. Similarly, money lost to welfare fraud could have funded opioid treatment programs, mental health services, or job training for unemployed citizens. Minnesota currently faces a shortage of funding for such services in many counties. Tax dollars should ideally be helping Americans struggling to get by – the single mother who needs child-care support to work, the diabetic senior who can’t afford insulin, the laid-off worker who needs retraining. When fraud drains the system, these are the people left unserved on waiting lists. By cracking down on fraud and reprioritizing spending, the state could ensure its documented residents and those who “did it the right way” (legal immigrants) get the help they need.
Improving Food Security and Health: The Feeding Our Future scandal vividly demonstrates opportunity cost. The $250 million stolen was intended to feed low-income children nutritious meals. To put that in perspective, $250 million could have provided 50 million hot lunches for kids (at $5 per meal) or funded years of expanded summer meal programs to end childhood hunger in Minnesota. Instead, the money was spent on luxury cars and overseas properties. Likewise, the $550 million slated for undocumented adults’ healthcare over four years could have been used to shore up Minnesota’s rural hospitals (many of which are financially struggling) or to lower premiums for law-abiding low-income families. Better nutrition, healthcare, and housing for struggling Americans translate to better outcomes in education and employment – a societal payoff far greater than the ill-gotten gains of fraud rings.
Climate Change and Energy Solutions: Minnesota is experiencing more extreme weather and needs investment in climate resilience (flood defenses, resilient agriculture) and clean energy (solar, wind, energy efficiency). Although social program funds and immigration-related spending don’t neatly translate to climate budgets, consider that eliminating ~$1 billion in annual waste could free up resources to, say, build multiple large-scale solar farms or weatherize tens of thousands of homes. Every dollar counts when preparing for a sustainable future. Instead of effectively throwing money away through fraud, Minnesota could be future-proofing its communities.
Immigration System Improvements: Interestingly, some of the funds being spent reactively on undocumented immigrants could instead be used to fix the broken legal immigration system. For example, a portion could fund additional immigration judges and asylum case officers, to speed up processing for those waiting in line legally. Minnesota could invest in better integration programs for legal refugees (the state has welcomed many, including the large Somali community in Minneapolis). If fraud were curbed, taxpayers might be more willing to support robust, healthy social programs – including sensible immigration reforms – because they could trust that funds aren’t being wasted. In short, stopping fraud and reducing misuse might create more public support for social spending that truly helps people.
Case Study: School Funding – Overspending vs. Underspending
To illustrate the importance of spending money wisely, consider two ends of the spectrum in education:
Overfunding with Poor Results (New York City): New York City public schools spend astronomical amounts per student – about $32,284 per pupil as of 2024, the highest in the nation – yet struggle with mediocre outcomes. NYC’s per-pupil spending is nearly double the U.S. average (projected to exceed $41,000 by 2025). Despite this, over 40% of NYC students fail state reading and math proficiency exams, and one-third are chronically absent. This mismatch between spending and results shows that simply throwing money at a problem isn’t enough – effective use of funds and accountability matter. It’s a cautionary tale that big budgets can be wasted through bureaucracy or mismanagement, yielding little benefit to students.
Underfunding and Needs (Minnesota’s Schools): Meanwhile, many Minnesota schools could productively use additional funding. Minnesota spends around the national average per pupil, but some districts (especially in Greater Minnesota) are strapped for resources. Aging school buildings, limited advanced courses, and teacher shortages in key subjects are ongoing issues. In 2023, there were teacher shortages in 44 licensure areas in the Twin Cities region alone. Moreover, school facilities nationwide need an extra $90 billion each year for maintenance and upgrades – a gap likely reflected in Minnesota as well. Dollars lost to fraud or diverted elsewhere could have been invested in these under-resourced schools: hiring quality teachers in STEM fields, upgrading classroom technology, expanding career and technical education, and so on. Unlike in NYC, where additional dollars might hit diminishing returns, in Minnesota those funds could directly address deficits (like replacing 50-year-old HVAC systems or purchasing new textbooks and laptops). The key point is not to spend more for the sake of it, but to spend wisely where it’s truly needed. If Minnesotans saw their tax dollars funding better education for their children – rather than vanishing to scandal – support for school funding might increase across the political spectrum.
Solutions and Recommendations
1. Crack Down on Fraud with Robust Oversight: Minnesota’s recent moves indicate a path forward. Governor Walz (facing criticism) has appointed a new Director of Program Integrity and ordered audits of 14 high-risk programs. This momentum must continue. The state should increase funding for auditors and investigators in agencies like the Department of Human Services (DHS) and Department of Education. Improved antifraud measures – such as data analytics to flag suspicious billing patterns and surprise on-site inspections – can deter fraud before it grows. For example, the Child Care Assistance Program could implement real-time attendance tracking for subsidized daycare centers, making it harder to bill for phantom children. Law enforcement (state and federal) should maintain aggressive pursuit of fraudsters, with stiff penalties (prison time, asset seizure) to send a message. It’s encouraging that dozens of perpetrators have been convicted and some money recovered in the Feeding Our Future case. Moving forward, interagency cooperation (state OIG, FBI, etc.) is crucial, as is acting on red flags early. Had state officials heeded warnings about Feeding Our Future in 2020, much of that $250M might have been saved. A culture of vigilance and accountability needs to be instilled in public offices. Every public dollar must be treated as precious – meant to serve a child or a needy person, not to enrich criminals.
2. Improve Transparency and Public Reporting: One reason fraud festered was poor transparency. Regular public reporting on program expenditures and outcomes can help. For instance, DHS could publish an annual “fraud risk report” summarizing investigations, losses, and recoveries in each assistance program. Shine a light on where taxpayer money is going. Similarly, for spending on non-citizens, the legislature could require the fiscal analysis office to report how much state funding goes to services for undocumented immigrants each year. When citizens see the numbers clearly, it’s easier to have an honest debate on policy. Transparency also builds trust – or alerts the public when course-correction is needed.
3. Distinguish and Prioritize Legal Immigration: Many Minnesotans are pro-immigrant (the state has benefitted from legal immigration for labor and cultural growth) but are frustrated by illegal immigration. One solution is to prioritize resources for those who follow the law. This could mean, for example, expanding support for legal immigrants and refugees (e.g. job training, language classes) using funds saved by eliminating fraud. Simultaneously, avoid new programs that incentivize illegal entry. The repeal of MinnesotaCare for undocumented adults is a case where policymakers decided the cost was unsustainable. Any future proposals should be fiscally sound and perhaps conditional (for example, require undocumented beneficiaries to be on a path to legal status if federal law changes). Minnesota can also lobby the federal government for immigration reforms – such as streamlined work visas – that reduce the pressure on states to provide emergency services to those outside the system. In summary, align state expenditures with a principle: support our residents and those immigrants who play by the rules, while minimizing benefits that accrue to those violating immigration laws. This prioritization can help build broader public support for immigrant communities and social programs.
4. Reinvest Savings in Visible Improvements: As fraud is reduced and funds recovered, Minnesota should very publicly reinvest that money into popular, high-impact projects for citizens. For example, suppose an audit uncovers $50 million in Medicaid waste – the state could announce that $50M will now go into fixing 100 unsafe bridges and funding rural broadband. Or money not spent on covering non-citizens’ healthcare could be redirected to a fund for reducing citizen families’ medical debt or insurance premiums. By visibly translating savings into improvements (better roads, better schools, lower crime, etc.), officials will bolster the public’s confidence. When people see a new community center or renovated playground in their town and know it was paid for by “cleaning up government,” it creates a positive feedback loop: taxpayers see tangible rewards, which increases trust and willingness to fund public initiatives. This is critical because public skepticism is high right now – many feel “Americans are left without while money just disappears.” Reinvestment and communication can change that narrative.
5. Strengthen Program Integrity Technology: Leverage technology to manage social programs more efficiently. Modern data systems can verify eligibility in real-time (ensuring only citizens or qualified legal residents receive certain benefits). Identity checks and cross-agency databases can prevent individuals from enrolling multiple times under fake identities. Additionally, use predictive analytics to spot anomalies – e.g., a small daycare center claiming meal reimbursements for 500 children should trigger an automatic alarm. The state’s IT infrastructure must treat fraud prevention as seriously as benefit delivery. In the 2018 daycare fraud case, one suggestion was to reinstate a billing form certification (saying “I certify this bill is correct” with personal liability) to deter false claims. Little procedural fixes, combined with 21st-century tech, can tighten the system. The goal is a “zero tolerance” environment for fraud.
6. Foster Bipartisan Consensus on Social Programs: Ultimately, eliminating fraud and curbing unauthorized expenditures is not just about saving money – it’s about preserving the integrity of Minnesota’s social safety net. If conservative and liberal Minnesotans alike saw that programs are well-run and free of abuse, they might find common ground to support robust social programs. For example, both sides agree that children should not go hungry and that our elderly should get care. The disagreement comes when programs appear riddled with fraud or when taxpayers think they’re footing the bill for people who broke the law. Solve those issues, and the debate shifts back to how to best help our neighbors. In this sense, cracking down on fraud isn’t a partisan attack on welfare – it’s a prerequisite for effective, compassionate welfare. Likewise, a clear policy on undocumented immigrants (perhaps focusing on legalizing those here working and deporting serious criminals) could remove some of the anger and let Minnesota focus on welcoming those who contribute. In short, by ensuring programs “leave no American behind” and that money isn’t just “gone,” more people would be open to strong social programs, as the user astutely noted. This can lead to healthier outcomes for all.
Conclusion
From 2016 to 2026, Minnesota learned some hard lessons. Weak oversight allowed fraudsters to steal startling amounts of public money, betraying the public trust. At the same time, well-intentioned efforts to include undocumented residents in state programs proved more costly than expected, sparking backlash. The result has been a feeling among many Minnesotans that “Americans are doing without while money is wasted or diverted.” This need not be the case going forward. By implementing rigorous anti-fraud measures, demanding accountability for every dollar, and carefully prioritizing whom to help, Minnesota can ensure that its resources serve those they are meant to serve – chiefly, its native-born citizens and legal residents who work, pay taxes, and play by the rules.
The numbers we’ve uncovered are eye-opening. Hundreds of millions of dollars that could have fixed roads, modernized power lines, fed children, housed the homeless, or educated the next generation, have instead been lost. But it’s also empowering to realize that by recapturing those funds and redirecting them, Minnesota could make major strides on long-standing issues. Imagine new highways without potholes, schools with great teachers and small classes, thriving clean energy projects, and social services that truly reach every vulnerable American in the state. Those are achievable goals if waste and fraud are stamped out.
In the end, good governance is about earning the people’s trust. Minnesota’s leaders – from Governor Walz and Mayor Frey to every county official – must demonstrate that they are responsible stewards of the public purse. The decade of 2016–2026 exposed pitfalls to avoid. The next decade can be one of renewal: a Minnesota where strong, well-run social programs exist “with no fraud and no one left out.” Eliminating the fraud and mismanagement will not magically solve every problem, but it will free up substantial resources. And if even one of the ideas like housing the homeless or upgrading infrastructure were fully funded by recovered money, it would make a “major impact in improving” life for Minnesotans, as the question posits.
By learning from the past and making pragmatic changes, Minnesota can lead by example – showing how a state can take care of its people, invest in the future, and welcome newcomers in the right way, all while maintaining the public’s confidence that their money is well spent. It starts with facing the facts (as we have done in this research) and then taking action so that in a decade’s time, we are writing about Minnesota’s success story, not its fraud saga.
Sources:
Office of Legislative Auditor, “Child Care Assistance Program: Assessment of Fraud Allegations,” Minnesota (2019) – confirmed $5–6 million proven fraud in daycare assistance, noted lack of evidence for $100M claim.
CBS News, “Everything we know about Minnesota’s massive fraud schemes,” Jan. 2024 – overview of fraud cases (Feeding Our Future $250M, housing program, etc.).
Chris Edwards (Cato Institute), “Minnesota Fraud Update,” Jan. 5, 2026 – summarizes multiple fraud scandals (78 indicted in food program; allegation of 50% of $18B Medicaid funds stolen).
Axios Twin Cities, “Minnesota’s growing unauthorized immigrant population,” Aug. 25, 2025 – Pew Research data estimating 130k unauthorized in MN (2.2% of pop., 25% of immigrant pop.).
FAIR, “Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration – Minnesota (2023),” – estimated annual cost $877.5M (incl. $712.5M education, $74.8M health/public assistance, remainder law enforcement).
Minnesota House Research (Rep. S. Mekeland press release), “Healthcare expansion for undocumented immigrants…cost doubles,” Apr. 21, 2025 – MinnesotaCare expansion for ~17k undocumented now $550M/4yrs vs. $196M projected.
Kare11 News, “More Minnesotans eligible to drive with Driver’s Licenses for All,” Oct. 2023 – about 80,000 undocumented immigrants expected to seek licenses under new law.
ASCE/Minnesota DoT data via APWA-MN, “2022 Infrastructure Report Card,” – roads underfunded by ~$885M annually in MN.
City-Journal (Manhattan Institute), “NYC Public Schools: Nation’s Least Efficient,” Sept. 10, 2025 – NYC spends $32k+ per student (projected $41k), yet >40% of students not proficient in math/reading.
Wilder Research & MN Interagency Council on Homelessness, “2023 Minnesota Homeless Count,” – documented 8,393 homeless individuals in Jan 2023 statewide.
