HHS Childcare Freeze: Defending Funding Pause by Citing Unrelated Minnesota Fraud

Social Services Source: Constituent Letter Responses MISLEADING

Why This Matters for NY-23

Working families in NY-23 depend on childcare assistance to keep jobs while their children are in safe care. When federal funds are frozen, childcare providers can’t get reimbursed, parents may have to quit work, and children lose access to programs like Head Start. Langworthy’s response blames a Minnesota fraud case that involved completely different programs — nutrition, not childcare — without providing any evidence of fraud concerns specific to New York.

Statement

Source: Constituent Letter Responses, January 31 and February 3, 2026

Multiple constituents wrote expressing concerns about HHS freezing federal childcare assistance for New York.

Langworthy’s response:

“As you know, on January 6, 2026, HHS temporarily froze access to the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) for New York. HHS has stated that this action was taken due to concerns about program oversight and management, and access to these funds is contingent upon the state submitting additional documentation to address those concerns.”

And:

“While I understand your concerns about the funding pause, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, of which I am a proud Member, recently uncovered a massive fraud scandal in Minnesota, where over $8.5 billion in federal taxpayer dollars were misused. This temporary funding pause by HHS ensures that similar issues do not occur in New York, where oversight of federal funds is also limited.”

And:

“Governor Hochul and the New York State government can secure the immediate release of these funds by being fully transparent and providing all necessary documentation to address any concerns about fraud.”

What the Response Claims

  1. HHS froze childcare funds due to “program oversight and management” concerns
  2. Minnesota had an $8.5 billion fraud scandal
  3. The NY freeze “ensures similar issues do not occur”
  4. Governor Hochul can release funds by providing “documentation”

Fact-Check Analysis

Claim: Minnesota fraud justifies NY freeze

The Minnesota Fraud Case: The “Feeding Our Future” fraud scandal in Minnesota involved a nonprofit that stole federal child nutrition program funds. This was a criminal fraud scheme prosecuted by the DOJ.

Key differences:

  • Minnesota fraud involved child nutrition programs, not CCDF/TANF/SSBG
  • The fraud was perpetrated by a specific nonprofit, not the state government
  • Minnesota’s state government was not accused of the fraud

The logical problem: Using Minnesota fraud to justify freezing New York funds conflates:

  • Different programs (nutrition vs. childcare/TANF)
  • Criminal fraud by a nonprofit vs. state administration
  • One state’s scandal vs. another state with no documented scandal

Claim: NY has “limited oversight” justifying freeze

What Langworthy does not provide:

  • Specific evidence of fraud in New York’s CCDF/TANF/SSBG programs
  • Specific documentation New York allegedly failed to provide
  • Comparison of NY oversight to other states

The deflection: The response blames Governor Hochul for not being “fully transparent” without specifying what documentation is missing or what fraud concerns exist specific to New York.

The Broader Context

Federal funding freezes affecting multiple states: The HHS freeze affected New York and other states, raising concerns that the action was politically motivated rather than based on specific fraud evidence.

Who is affected:

  • Working families depending on childcare assistance
  • Children in subsidized childcare programs
  • Childcare providers waiting for reimbursement

The Pattern

This response follows the documented pattern of:

  1. Acknowledge constituent concern ✓
  2. Cite unrelated issue to justify administration action (Minnesota fraud)
  3. Blame state government (Hochul)
  4. Promise to “keep thoughts in mind” ✓

Questions This Raises

  1. What specific fraud concerns exist for New York’s CCDF/TANF/SSBG programs?
  2. Is there evidence of fraud in New York similar to Minnesota’s?
  3. What specific documentation did HHS request that New York allegedly failed to provide?
  4. Why freeze funds for programs unrelated to the Minnesota fraud?
  5. How does punishing NY families address Minnesota nonprofit fraud?

What Would Be Needed for This Defense

For Langworthy’s defense of the freeze to be substantiated, he would need to show:

  • Evidence of fraud concerns specific to New York
  • That CCDF/TANF/SSBG programs had similar vulnerabilities to Minnesota’s nutrition program
  • That the freeze was targeted and proportional to documented concerns

Without this, the response amounts to: “Minnesota had fraud, so freezing New York’s childcare funds is justified.”

In Plain Language

Langworthy’s defense of the childcare funding freeze boils down to: “Minnesota had fraud, so freezing New York’s funds is justified.”

But the Minnesota fraud involved child nutrition programs, not childcare. It was committed by a specific nonprofit, not state government. And there’s no evidence of similar fraud in New York’s childcare programs.

The response blames Governor Hochul for not being “fully transparent” but doesn’t specify what documentation is missing or what fraud concerns exist for New York. It’s using an unrelated scandal to justify an action that hurts NY-23 families who need childcare assistance to work.

Form Letter Evidence

Same response sent to multiple constituents on different dates (January 31 and February 3, 2026) with identical language, confirming form letter.

Sources

  • Constituent letter responses (January 31 and February 3, 2026)
  • DOJ: Feeding Our Future prosecution (Minnesota fraud case)
  • HHS: Childcare funding freeze announcements
  • News coverage of federal funding freezes

Note: This entry documents publicly available information from official correspondence. The fact-check focuses on the logical connection between Minnesota fraud and New York funding freeze. Readers may draw their own conclusions.

Research contribution: Constituent submissions via LangworthyWatch

Last updated: February 4, 2026