Minnesota Fraud Hearing: Three Claims Examined

Why This Matters for NY-23

Rep. Langworthy sits on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which has been investigating the Minnesota pandemic-era fraud scandal. His newsletter characterization of that investigation — and of the motives behind it — is based in part on his direct participation in a March 4, 2026 committee hearing. NY-23 constituents should understand which of his claims are grounded in documented fact, which are contested, and which go beyond what investigators have established.

Statement

Source: Weekly Newsletter, March 8, 2026

“This week, on the House Oversight Committee, we continued our investigation into the massive Minnesota fraud scandal that has resulted in estimates of $9 billion in stolen tax dollars. This brazen fraud was allowed to go on unchecked for years—and when whistleblowers came forward to sound the alarm they were silenced and punished so Democrat state officials like Governor Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison could continue reaping their political benefit of a bloc vote in the Somali community.”

Claim 1: “Estimates of $9 billion in stolen tax dollars”

Rating: MISLEADING — stated as established fact; actually a contested, unsubstantiated projection

The $9 billion figure originated from a December 2025 statement by First Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson. Thompson told reporters he believed fraud may have affected 14 “high-risk” Medicaid programs that collectively billed $18 billion to the state since 2018, and estimated “half or more” of that spending was fraudulent — producing a $9 billion-or-more figure. Thompson did not release a public evidentiary breakdown supporting the estimate.

The figure was immediately disputed. Governor Walz called it “speculative” and “sensationalized.” Minnesota DHS Deputy Commissioner John Connolly said his agency had seen evidence of “tens of millions of dollars in fraud,” not $9 billion. The Minnesota Reformer and other outlets noted Thompson did not release documentation.

What is actually documented in court records:

The FBI described Feeding Our Future as “the largest COVID-19 fraud scheme in the United States” at $250 million — a figure appearing in every DOJ and FBI press release. The Minnesota OLA’s June 2024 special review on MDE’s oversight of Feeding Our Future confirmed the DOJ fraud figure but did not estimate broader fraud across other programs.

Bottom line: Langworthy’s “$9 billion” is the unsubstantiated top-end projection of a single prosecutor, disputed by the state government and not corroborated with public documentation. Stating it as the result of “estimates” obscures that the documented, prosecuted fraud is ~$250 million — 36 times smaller. Legitimate estimates exist across a wide range; Langworthy chose the highest disputed figure.

Claim 2: “Whistleblowers came forward to sound the alarm, they were silenced and punished”

Rating: SUBSTANTIALLY SUPPORTED — retaliation documented; direct chain to Walz/Ellison personally is contested

There is documented evidence of whistleblowers being retaliated against:

Faye Bernstein, a compliance officer at the Minnesota Department of Human Services, raised warnings about risky contracting practices as early as 2018–2019. After speaking out, she was locked out of the DHS building, had her credentials revoked, was called “racist,” had her work responsibilities diminished, and was transferred into roles with little substantive work. She reported that her supervisor received a promotion for silencing her.

The House Oversight Committee stated it interviewed more than 30 state whistleblowers — including current employees and Democrats — many of whom reported retaliation by the Walz administration. The committee’s interim staff report was titled “The Cost of Doing Nothing: How Tim Walz and Keith Ellison Fueled Minnesota’s Fraud Explosion.”

The Minnesota OLA’s 2024 special review concluded that MDE “failed to act on warning signs” before and during the pandemic and “did not effectively exercise its authority to hold Feeding Our Future accountable.”

Important qualifier: The primary documented retaliation involves agency-level conduct, not documented direct orders from Walz or Ellison personally. Both officials deny knowingly suppressing whistleblowers. Whether the retaliation represents a deliberate cover-up versus systemic agency dysfunction is the contested core of the congressional investigation — not a settled finding.

Claim 3: Fraud “allowed to go on…so Democrat state officials…could continue reaping their political benefit of a bloc vote in the Somali community”

Rating: NOT SUPPORTED — political accusation not established by any law enforcement or investigative body

This is the most specific and most serious claim: that Walz and Ellison intentionally allowed the fraud to continue in order to preserve a political voting bloc.

What investigators actually found:

• MDE, under Walz’s administration, identified Feeding Our Future as “severely deficient” in December 2020 and attempted to stop payments. It was then sued by Feeding Our Future.
• A Minnesota court found MDE had not provided adequate legal basis to stop payments in spring 2021. MDE voluntarily resumed payments.
• Critically: Judge John Guthmann later publicly corrected Walz’s claim that courts forced payments to continue. The judge stated in writing: “All of the Minnesota Department of Education food reimbursement payments to [Feeding Our Future] were made voluntarily, without any court order.”
• An MDE official contacted the FBI in April 2021. The FBI conducted surveillance and executed search warrants in January 2022.

On the motive claim: No DOJ charging document, FBI press release, or OLA report attributes deliberate inaction to a desire to preserve the Somali community’s vote. The motive claim originates with Republican members of Congress, not with law enforcement. What investigators and one documented insider described is more narrow: state officials were reluctant to act against a predominantly Somali organization out of concern about being perceived as racist — a concern about optics, not an explicit vote-trading arrangement.

Kayseh Magan, a Somali-American fraud investigator in the AG’s Medicaid Fraud Division, wrote in July 2024 that state officials were hesitant to take action “for fear of political backlash” — but he did not allege a deliberate electoral calculation, and he did not allege he was personally retaliated against for raising concerns.

The distinction matters: bureaucratic reluctance to police a minority-serving nonprofit is a serious failure. Attributing that failure to a calculated vote-trading scheme is a specific criminal allegation that no law enforcement agency has charged or concluded.

Summary

Related Fact-Checks

• Minneapolis ICE Shooting: Renée Good — Langworthy’s characterization of a federal shooting in Minneapolis

Sources

• DOJ/USAO-MN: 77th Defendant Charged in Feeding Our Future Fraud Scheme
• FBI: Dozens Charged in $250 Million COVID Fraud Scheme (Sept. 2022)
• Minnesota OLA: Oversight of Feeding Our Future (June 2024)
• Star Tribune: Walz says there’s no evidence of $9B in fraud
• Minnesota Reformer: U.S. Attorney: Fraud likely exceeds $9 billion (Dec. 2025)
• MN Courts: Correcting media reports on court-ordered payments
• House Oversight Committee: Hearing Wrap-Up, Part II (March 4, 2026)
• Minnesota Reformer: A Somali-American investigator explains the fraud (July 2024)
• Star Tribune: Minnesota Human Services whistleblowers say concerns were ignored

Note: This entry documents publicly available information from court records, government reports, and verified news sources. Readers may draw their own conclusions.

Last updated: March 14, 2026