Trump Minnesota Jabs Won’t Reduce Fraud But Will Sap State Power

The State of Minnesota sued the Trump administration this week for cutting off its Medicaid funding and alleging rampant fraud. This continues the administration’s campaign to paint Minnesota’s government as indifferent to fraud in its human services programs.

Administration officials have tweeted out a series of angry letters to Minnesota officials making vague accusations and extravagant demands. These largely redundant letters contort the facts and misrepresent the law.

It’s another example of the administration’s wielding taxpayers’ dollars to baselessly punish partisan opponents. Far from being a haven for fraud, Minnesota’s Medicaid error rate is below the national average and well below those of several Republican-led states whom the administration hasn’t bothered.

Earlier, the administration criticized Minnesota’s operation of federal food assistance programs based on a single incident from several years ago. The nonprofit Feeding Our Future falsely billed for meals supposedly served between 2020 and 2022. Pandemic conditions slowed state and federal officials’ detection of this fraud.

Minnesota agencies, partnering with the Biden administration’s Department of Justice, exposed and dismantled Feeding Our Future four years ago. Dozens of people had been convicted long before President Donald Trump resumed office in 2025, with dozens more charged. The Trump DOJ has continued mopping up, but the heavy lifting was already done.

If Feeding Our Future was symptomatic of a broader culture of fraud rather, one would expect to see other schemes exposed. Yet after more than a year, the Trump administration can find nothing more than a four-year-old case to back up its accusations.

Bipartisan majorities in Congress have established rigorous accountability measures on federal food assistance programs. The Department of Agriculture requires Minnesota, like all other states, to audit itself. Federal investigators then audit the audits to prevent states from going easy on themselves.

According to data the Trump administration released in 2025, Minnesota’s error rate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the largest federal food program, was below the national average. It was less than half the error rate of Alaska and far below those of Florida and Georgia, which have received none of the abuse directed at Minnesota (but which have Republican governors).

Beyond targeting Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) for running for vice president, the administration seems intent on bullying Minnesota into releasing huge volumes of sensitive information on participants in anti-poverty programs. As the administration surely knows, federal law prohibits Minnesota from complying.

Programs such as SNAP and Medicaid receive most of their funding from the federal government but are administered by the states. Congress adopted this approach to respect states’ roles in caring for their people and to avoid creating more federal bureaucracy. Federal officials conduct oversight, but state and local employees take applications, determine eligibility, dispense benefits, and investigate possible fraud.

Federal law holds states, not federal agencies, responsible for implementing “safeguards which restrict the use or disclosure of information concerning applicants and recipients.” States must share information with federal officials on the random sample of recipients audited annually but have no authority to accede to the administration’s demands for a massive dump of everyone’s confidential information.

With narrow exceptions, information obtained from low-income people seeking assistance may only be used for “administration or enforcement” of the programs in question. Federal privacy statutes similarly limit access to personal information to “a purpose which is compatible with the purpose for which it was collected.”

The administration’s claims that it seeks this sensitive information to battle fraud aren’t credible. Federal agencies have never been staffed sufficiently to investigate individuals for fraud. Elon Musk’s DOGE-led reductions in the federal workforce have left these agencies even less capable of pursuing fraud. Federal law assigns the fraud control function to state and local governments, which have presence throughout their territories.

At best, the administration plans to feed this information into the same kind of deeply flawed artificial intelligence tools that have led the Department of Homeland Security to arrest and deport numerous US citizens and to exempt inexperienced recruits from training. At worst, this information will go into the grand national database that Musk has sought to create.

Because states will be legally accountable for any abuses of data they hand over, they understandably have resisted the administration’s demands. A federal court enjoined the administration from acting against states for refusing to submit the demanded personal data.

Perhaps recognizing its untenable legal position, the administration didn’t appeal. Yet angry letters and extravagant demands keep coming, often posted to social media before they are delivered to the state. And so do the court orders finding the administration is acting outside its legal authority.

The administration may dislike states’ independent authority, but it’s a fundamental part of our federal system that Republicans once defended. The US Supreme Court has invoked states’ autonomy to block federal initiatives to protect battered women, to enhance gun safety, to preserve the environment, and to provide universal health care.

We should take fraud seriously—both on principle and to safeguard programs for those in need. Trying to settle political scores with stale accusations undermines efforts to improve anti-poverty programs’ effectiveness and integrity while weakening the federal-state cooperation our well-being depends on.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Author Information

David A. Super is a professor of law and economics at Georgetown Law School.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines