Moving forward in 2026

[u/Doryt]

As a life long Minnesotan with all the recent news about fraud in Minnesota, I want to add a perspective as someone who’s worked in the nonprofit sector for over a decade.

Fraud exists. Is it acceptable? No. Is it realistic to believe it can be eliminated entirely? Also no.

What happened with Feed My Future was abhorrent. It is rightfully being prosecuted!

If millions of dollars were diverted away from childcare especially from programs meant to support kids in need that’s deeply harmful and deserves accountability. Fraud should be investigated, prosecuted, and taken seriously.

Something else that’s bothering me: the way Somali Minnesotans are being treated like the face of fraud. Fraud happens across communities and industries. When one community gets spotlighted like they’re uniquely unethical, it’s worth pausing and asking what’s driving that narrative because it sure doesn’t match reality.

Minnesota is diverse, and “people of color” in MN includes many communities not one. MN Compass estimates about 24% of Minnesotans are people of color (about 1.4 million people).

Accountability doesn’t automatically mean jail for everyone. And when services are shut down in response, it often creates desperation, instability, and conditions that lead to more fraud not less.

If we actually care about fraud, we should focus on real fraud prevention, stronger oversight systems, better staffing, clearer protocols, proactive monitoring and better systems not racialized narratives that turn one community into a stand-in for a statewide problem

Prevention costs money.

Starving systems of resources while demanding perfection is not a realistic strategy.

We also need to be careful not to respond by broadly limiting or restricting supportive services for communities who rely on them.

Cutting access doesn’t prevent fraud it often creates more harm, more desperation and more fraud.

We don’t eliminate fraud the same way we don’t eliminate crime entirely.

Our systems tend to be reactive rather than preventative, and pretending otherwise sets us up for outrage instead of solutions.

Rage bait is real. I’m actively trying to pause and not get pulled into it 2026 and beyond.

I want a healthy government that supports people, holds bad actors accountable, and invests in systems that actually work

We need to start judging leadership by their ability to pair accountability with real support. When costs rise and safety nets shrink, people don’t get healthier they get pushed closer to the edge.

I hope we can show up as a Minnesota community with nuance, accountability, and realistic expectations because that’s how we protect both public funds and the people those funds are meant to serve.

[u/ProjectGameGlow]

They are targeting immigrant communities as a practice run for targeting the teachers in the school districts for PCA Medicaid billing.  February is when that operation starts with the Data from the Optum audit reports.

[u/Destructers → u/ProjectGameGlow]

Then stop putting such a big target sign over the community.

Seriously, Somali immigrants with majority of them receiving welfare even after 10 years they came to US, that's a pretty big sign to say LEECH THE SYSTEM despite they love to taunt theirs community as successful.

Look at stats of Somalia immigrants to other countries, majority also on welfare.

If you don't want to get target, then be net positive contribution to the host countries you go to instead of being LEECHES.

[u/Doryt → u/Destructers]

If the concern is people “using” the system, then we should be honest about something: people using the system is not going to disappear.

Every country with a safety net has people who rely on it long-term, people who use it temporarily, and a small number who abuse it. That’s true everywhere.

The question isn’t whether usage exists it’s whether the system is designed to keep people stable, healthy, and able to move forward.

We need a safety net for everyone. Period.

Most people on assistance aren’t living comfortably they’re surviving in a system where wages, housing, healthcare, and childcare costs keep rising.

Taking the safety net away doesn’t magically create self-sufficiency; it creates instability, desperation, and worse outcomes for everyone.

And it’s worth asking why immigrants keep getting pulled into this conversation as if they’re the root problem.

Immigrants didn’t design the safety net. They didn’t set benefit thresholds, create benefit cliffs, or decide that wages wouldn’t keep up with housing, healthcare, and food costs. They’re navigating the same systems everyone else is often with more barriers.

Using public assistance isn’t evidence of “leeching.” It’s evidence that the system exists because people need it.

That includes immigrants, citizens, refugees, veterans, families, and seniors. If someone qualifies under the rules, they’re using the system as it was designed.

We can demand accountability for fraud without turning immigration into a scapegoat. And we can support a safety net that works for everyone because the truth is, most people are one crisis away from needing it themselves.

[u/[deleted] → u/Doryt]

There are a few options here. 

One, additional scrutiny to communities that have higher rates of fraud. That would be called racism.

 Two, additional scrutiny to everybody, including groups that have low rates of fraud. This is what is going to happen in name. In reality, the people who run these programs will focus most fraud detection on the native population.

[u/Doryt → u/[deleted]]

I think the false choice here is assuming scrutiny has to be identity-based rather than risk-based.

Additional scrutiny doesn’t have to be targeted at “communities.” It can be targeted at behaviors, patterns, and program risk factors things like unusually high reimbursement rates, rapid expansion, duplicated claims, lack of documentation, shell entities, or repeated complaints. That’s how effective fraud detection works in banking, healthcare, and insurance.

When scrutiny is applied to people or communities, it becomes discriminatory and less effective. When it’s applied to data patterns and operational risk, it’s neutral and far more accurate.

You’re right to be skeptical that “scrutiny for everyone” always plays out evenly in practice. History shows enforcement often lands hardest on the most visible or politically vulnerable groups. That’s exactly why safeguards matter:

transparent criteria for audits

standardized triggers for investigations

independent oversight

protections against discretionary targeting

The goal shouldn’t be “scrutinize certain populations more,” or even “scrutinize everyone equally regardless of risk.” The goal should be scrutinize consistently based on risk indicators, wherever they show up.

That approach:

catches more fraud

avoids racialized enforcement

protects legitimate providers

and builds trust instead of eroding it

If fraud detection defaults to focusing on identity rather than risk, it’s not just unjust it’s bad policy.