Why the Federal Government Is Cracking Down on Welfare Fraud—and What It Means for Benefits Nationwide

Last updated 2 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

In December 2025, federal authorities announced they had charged 78 defendants in connection with a $250 million fraud scheme centered in Minnesota, making it the largest COVID-era benefits fraud case in the nation.

FBI Director Kash Patel said in late December: “The FBI believes this is the tip of a very large iceberg.” That warning has set off a nationwide crackdown on welfare fraud that’s reshaping how states administer benefits programs.

Federal prosecutors examining Minnesota’s programs have identified 14 high-risk Medicaid initiatives that have cost $18 billion since 2018, with prosecutors stating there is “reason to believe that more than half of that amount was fraudulent.” Congress has scheduled hearings for January 7 and February 10, 2026, to examine what went wrong. The Trump administration has frozen child care payments to Minnesota—funds that typically reach $185 million annually—pending audits.

How the Minnesota Schemes Worked

The Minnesota case reveals this wasn’t individuals making mistakes on applications or recipients trying to sneak extra dollars per month. This was organized, sophisticated fraud executed through shell companies, fake nonprofits, and international money laundering networks.

In April 2020, Said Ereg enrolled a small storefront grocery store called Evergreen Grocery and Deli in the Federal Child Nutrition Program, which provides meals to children during emergencies and school closures. Under his direction and with the involvement of his wife, Najmo M. Ahmed, they began submitting falsified meal count sheets.

One claim, dated December 31, 2020, asserted that Evergreen Grocery and Deli had served 3,250 children twice daily during a specific week in January 2021. Between April 2020 and April 2021, this small grocery store claimed to have served over 1.4 million meals to children.

Evergreen Grocery and Deli received over $4.2 million in fraudulent claims paid by Feeding Our Future, the nonprofit administering the program. Rather than serving children, Ereg transferred these funds into personal accounts. Ahmed took approximately $1.38 million of the federal child nutrition program money and laundered it through foreign textile trading companies, with the remainder funding purchases from Burberry, Louis Vuitton, and Canada Goose. She pleaded guilty in February 2025.

This case doesn’t represent typical welfare fraud. The scheme required creating fictitious meal counts, submitting false documentation, establishing business infrastructure to make the fraud appear legitimate, and moving stolen money through international channels. This required knowledge, coordination, and deliberate deception.

The 78 defendants charged came from organized networks rather than acting as isolated bad actors. Some defendants allegedly came from Philadelphia specifically because they “heard it was easy money” in Minnesota and targeted a Medicaid autism services program, paying kickbacks to parents to have their children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and enrolled in fraudulent programs. Another defendant received $6 million in Medicaid funds based entirely on fabricated claims.

A former Ramsey County forensic auditor and whistleblower discovered dozens of suspected fraud cases involving Minnesota’s Child Care Assistance Program dating back more than a decade. The investigations uncovered that the state had inadequate verification of whether services were being provided, insufficient cross-agency data sharing to catch people collecting multiple fraudulent payments, and automated payment systems that accepted submitted claims with minimal scrutiny.

Welfare Fraud vs. Payment Errors vs. Overpayments

Welfare fraud specifically means intentionally providing false information to obtain benefits you’re not entitled to receive. It requires knowledge and deliberate deception. An example: reporting lower income than you actually earn, knowing this false statement will increase your benefit. Or, like in the Minnesota case, fabricating entire meal service operations to collect government payments.

Payment errors occur when mistakes happen in the system—by recipients, caseworkers, data entry clerks, or computer programmers. The Congressional Research Service notes that “the overwhelming majority of SNAP errors that do occur result from mistakes by recipients, eligibility workers, data entry clerks, or computer programmers, not dishonesty or fraud by recipients.” An example would be a caseworker entering someone’s income incorrectly, or a recipient honestly misunderstanding what income to report.

Overpayments can result from either fraud or errors. You’ve received more benefits than you were entitled to—but that overpayment might have happened because you provided false information (fraud), or it might have happened because the system made a mistake or you didn’t understand the rules (error). The SNAP program’s payment error rate for fiscal year 2024 was 10.93%, but this measure includes overpayments and underpayments, and it’s “not a measure of program fraud.”

In fiscal year 2022, the overpayment rate was 9.84 percent of benefits, meaning roughly 10 cents of every dollar went to ineligible people or was above what eligible people should have received. But not all of this was fraud. Some resulted from eligible people not correctly reporting changes in circumstances. Some resulted from caseworker or system errors. A substantial portion represented honest mistakes.

If you made an honest error on your SNAP application—you didn’t understand what income to report, or you forgot to mention that someone moved into your household—you’re typically required to repay whatever you received as an overpayment, but you’re not criminally prosecuted. If you deliberately lied to get benefits you knew you weren’t entitled to, that’s fraud, and the consequences include potential criminal charges, jail time, fines, and disqualification from benefits.

A system designed to catch people deliberately lying can sometimes flag honest mistakes or even completely legitimate benefit uses as suspicious. The result is that “false positives”—times when legitimate transactions or applications are flagged as fraudulent—create problems for eligible people trying to access help they’re entitled to.

Fraud Rates in Welfare Programs

Actual fraud in the SNAP program occurs but is relatively uncommon compared to the total amount of benefits distributed. The current SNAP fraud rate sits at roughly 1 to 2 percent of benefits distributed. That means 98 to 99 percent of SNAP dollars go to people who are eligible and receive the correct amount.

SNAP distributed roughly $190 billion in benefits in fiscal year 2023. If fraud represents 1 to 2 percent, that’s approximately $1.9 to $3.8 billion in fraudulent SNAP payments annually. Every dollar of fraud is money not available for legitimate beneficiaries, but it’s a small fraction of the total program.

For comparison, the tax gap—the difference between taxes legally owed and taxes actually paid—is estimated at around 15 percent of taxes owed according to Internal Revenue Service projections. In healthcare fraud, prosecutors have charged hundreds of defendants in single takedowns involving billions in fraudulent Medicare and Medicaid claims.

The SNAP payment error rate has increased in recent years. The fiscal year 2022 overpayment rate was 9.84 percent, up from 6.18 percent in 2019. But this increase resulted partly from policy changes in how errors are counted rather than from actual increases in fraud or mistakes. In 2022, the USDA changed how it counted errors related to procedural mistakes, even when the actual benefit amounts were correct. This policy change increased the reported error rate without necessarily reflecting more actual fraud or mistakes by recipients.

Unemployment insurance fraud presents a different picture. During the COVID-19 pandemic, widespread unemployment insurance fraud emerged, with estimates suggesting $163 billion or more in fraudulent payments. This represented a much larger proportion of pandemic-era unemployment benefits, largely because states were overwhelmed processing unprecedented numbers of claims with minimal verification. But this doesn’t necessarily reflect normal unemployment insurance fraud levels.

Fraud exists in welfare programs and should be addressed, but it occurs at rates lower than many people believe and lower than fraud in other government programs or in the private sector. The Minnesota case and other recent investigations show that when sophisticated criminal operations target these programs, the amounts stolen can be very substantial.

Changes to Benefits Administration

Federal and state authorities are implementing data matching systems that compare information across agencies to catch duplicate applications, verify income against state wage databases, and identify inconsistencies in applications. When you apply for SNAP or child care subsidies, your stated income is compared against tax records, employment data, and public records databases to verify what you’ve reported.

Some states are piloting biometric identification systems, particularly fingerprint-based verification, to prevent people from obtaining benefits under multiple identities.

Artificial intelligence and machine learning are moving into fraud detection. Rather than relying solely on pre-set rules about what constitutes suspicious activity, newer systems analyze patterns across thousands of applications to identify ones that deviate from normal patterns in ways that might indicate fraud. These systems can theoretically be more accurate than simple rule-based approaches, but they also create risks of algorithmic bias and false positives that wrongly flag legitimate recipients.

Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” passed in July 2025 expanded SNAP work requirements significantly. Previously, adults without dependents older than 54 were exempt. Now, the exemption only applies to those older than 64. The law also expanded mandatory work or training requirements to 80 hours per month for those subject to work requirements, and it tightened many previous exemptions. These changes take effect in phases throughout 2026.

As of late 2025, twelve states have received approval to restrict SNAP purchases of certain items like soda, candy, and energy drinks. These waivers fundamentally change what recipients can purchase with their benefits, moving the program away from flexible food choice toward state-defined “nutritious” options.

Minnesota has suspended payments to 14 high-risk Medicaid programs and ordered third-party audits. The federal government froze child care payments to Minnesota after a viral video by YouTuber Nick Shirley alleged fraud at Somali-run day care centers. Republican-controlled states are moving toward implementing similar enhanced verification systems and tighter work requirements.

When fraud prevention measures are implemented, application processing typically takes longer. Recipients must provide more documentation, states must conduct more thorough verification, and agencies must dedicate resources to checking for fraud rather than simply processing applications. The effect has historically been slower benefit delivery for everyone.

What to Expect If You Apply or Receive Benefits

When you apply for benefits, you’ll need to provide more documentation than previously required. For SNAP, you’ll need to provide proof of income—typically recent pay stubs or tax returns. You may need to provide proof of household composition, such as birth certificates or custody documents for children. You may need to verify your identity more thoroughly, possibly including biometric verification in some states.

Your stated income will be checked against state wage databases and the National Directory of New Hires. Your property ownership and vehicle registrations might be checked. Your bank accounts may be examined if state agencies suspect undisclosed assets. If you receive unemployment benefits, you may be required to regularly certify that you’re actively seeking work and provide documentation of your job search.

Many programs are reducing the amount of time you can receive benefits before you must recertify eligibility. Recertification used to happen annually or every few years for some programs; increasingly, it’s happening every 3 to 6 months. When you recertify, you must provide updated documentation showing that you still meet eligibility requirements.

If your income changes, if someone moves into or out of your household, if your employment status changes, or if you get married or divorced, you’re typically required to report this within a certain timeframe—often within ten days. Failure to report changes can result in overpayments that you’re then required to repay, even if you didn’t intentionally conceal the change.

Application processing times have historically averaged 30 days for SNAP, though expedited applications can be processed within 7 days. As verification requirements increase, these timelines may stretch. You may be asked for additional information multiple times. You may be required to attend in-person interviews rather than completing applications online.

Start keeping detailed records of your income, household composition, and changes in circumstances. Save pay stubs, tax documents, and correspondence with employers. If you have custody documents, guardianship papers, or documentation of disabilities affecting household members, keep those accessible.

Protect yourself from identity theft. If someone uses your identity to apply for fraudulent benefits, you could face serious consequences. Monitor your benefit account regularly. Don’t share your benefit card PIN with anyone. If you suspect fraud involving your identity, report it immediately to your state benefit agency.

If You Make a Mistake or Get Accused of Fraud

If you realize you provided incorrect information on your benefits application—you forgot to mention income, you didn’t understand how to report something, or circumstances changed and you couldn’t get to the benefit office to report it—contact your state benefit agency and correct the error yourself. You’ll likely be required to repay whatever overpayment you received as a result of the error, but you won’t face criminal charges.

The repayment can be structured. You typically aren’t required to repay the entire overpayment in one lump sum. Your state benefit agency can set up a payment plan, sometimes deducting small amounts from your ongoing benefits over months or years.

If your state benefit agency believes you’ve committed fraud—deliberately provided false information to obtain benefits—you have the right to a fair hearing before action is taken against you. This is required by the Supreme Court’s Goldberg decision, which guarantees due process for beneficiaries before benefits are reduced or terminated.

You receive written notice of the alleged fraud and the agency’s proposed action (typically disqualification from benefits). You have the right to request a fair hearing within a specific timeframe, typically 10 to 30 days depending on your state. At the fair hearing, an impartial hearing officer reviews the evidence the agency has gathered and the evidence you present. You have the right to bring documents, witnesses, and an attorney if you choose.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, you can request one be appointed to you at no cost. Legal aid organizations across the country specialize in benefits law and can represent you for free if you meet income requirements. Organizations like the Legal Services Corporation fund legal aid programs specifically for situations like this.

If your state or the federal government believes the fraud is severe enough to warrant criminal prosecution—rather than just administrative disqualification from benefits—that’s a separate process handled through the criminal courts. You’d be charged with fraud, and the prosecution would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you intentionally provided false information with the intent to defraud the program.

Criminal fraud carries serious consequences. Conviction can result in prison time (sentences typically range from a few months to several years depending on the severity and amount involved), substantial fines, restitution orders requiring you to repay the full amount you obtained fraudulently, and permanent criminal record that affects employment, housing, and other benefits going forward.

To be prosecuted for criminal fraud, the government must prove you knowingly provided false information. It’s not fraud if you made an honest mistake, even if that mistake resulted in an overpayment. It’s not fraud if a caseworker made an error entering your information. It’s not fraud if you didn’t understand the rules.

The Problem With Broad Crackdowns

When eligibility systems become more complicated, when verification requires more documentation, when applications take longer to process—these barriers fall hardest on people who are already struggling. Someone working multiple part-time jobs, someone without a fixed address, someone with limited English proficiency, someone caring for children or elderly relatives—these people have fewer resources to navigate complex systems. Making the system harder in the name of fraud prevention can prevent eligible people from accessing the help they need.

Enhanced work requirements are supposed to incentivize work among able-bodied adults without dependents. But studies show these requirements don’t actually increase employment rates significantly, because most people on SNAP are already working or unable to work due to disability or caregiving responsibilities. What the requirements do accomplish is administrative burden. Eligible people who are already struggling sometimes give up. The result is that work requirements reduce program participation without producing much employment increase.

The Congressional Budget Office predicted that new Medicaid work requirements taking effect in 2027 will cause millions of people to lose health coverage—not because they’re ineligible, but because they can’t navigate the new administrative requirements or because administrative errors disqualify them. In states that have already implemented Medicaid work requirements, like Georgia, working people have lost coverage because they couldn’t figure out how to report their work hours through an online system, or because administrative errors threw them off the rolls.

When a verification system flags your application as suspicious because your income seems inconsistent with your stated job, legitimate explanations exist (you changed jobs recently, you got a raise, you had a period of unemployment). But if the system automatically denies your application without human review, you’re harmed even though nothing fraudulent happened.

Civil rights advocates, poverty organizations, and some government administrators worry about the current crackdown. They’re not dismissing fraud as unimportant. They’re pointing out that fraud prevention measures can cause real harm if they’re not carefully designed with safeguards to protect legitimate beneficiaries.

The Minnesota fraud cases have disproportionately focused on Somali-run organizations, and the media coverage has sometimes veered into stereotyping entire communities. While the fraud allegations are serious and deserve prosecution, the broader crackdown risks creating systems that subject certain communities to heightened scrutiny based on ethnicity rather than actual evidence of wrongdoing. Research shows that racialized fraud provisions have historically criminalized hunger and made it harder for communities of color to access benefits they’re entitled to.

Congressional Response and Future Changes

Congressional committees have scheduled hearings for January 7, 2026, with state officials who’ve sounded alarm about fraud, and for February 10, 2026, with Governor Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer has called the situation a “massive fraud” and stated that “Congress has a duty to conduct rigorous oversight of this heist and enact stronger safeguards.”

During the 2026 congressional session, expect proposals for enhanced fraud prevention measures, tighter verification requirements, and expanded work requirements for various benefit programs. Some proposals will likely include increased funding for fraud investigation and prosecution. Others will focus on data-sharing between federal agencies to prevent duplicate benefits. Some will expand existing biometric identification and verification systems.

Republican-controlled states are watching Minnesota closely and are likely to implement enhanced verification and work requirements modeled on what’s emerging federally. Democratic-controlled states may move more cautiously, concerned about reducing legitimate access to benefits.

Federal authorities investigating the Minnesota schemes believe they’ve uncovered only a fraction of fraudulent activity, with more charges and convictions likely. These ongoing prosecutions will continue to reveal how fraud schemes operate, potentially informing new prevention measures.

Investment in data matching systems, biometric verification, and AI-based fraud detection is increasing. Within the next 1 to 2 years, most states will likely have implemented enhanced automated verification systems that check recipient information against multiple databases before benefits are issued.

What Effective Fraud Prevention Looks Like

Effective fraud prevention starts with risk-based approaches. Not every application deserves the same level of scrutiny. An application from someone who’s received benefits for years, whose circumstances haven’t changed dramatically, whose information matches existing records—that application should sail through quickly. An application claiming to serve 1.4 million meals from a small grocery store should trigger immediate review. The system should be smart enough to distinguish between these cases.

Comparing stated income against wage databases makes sense. But the system needs to account for legitimate reasons why information might not match perfectly—recent job changes, self-employment income, seasonal work, tips and cash income that don’t show up in wage databases immediately. Automatic denials based on data mismatches, without human review, create false positives that harm eligible people.

Third-party verification of services actually provided matters for programs like child care subsidies and meal programs. If a provider claims to serve 3,250 children daily, someone should verify that the facility can physically accommodate that many children. If a provider claims to distribute millions of meals, someone should check whether they have the kitchen capacity, storage, and distribution infrastructure to do so.

The Minnesota fraud cases came to light partly because of whistleblowers who reported suspicious activity. But whistleblowers need protection from retaliation and need to know their reports will be taken seriously. Too often, fraud reports sit unexamined because agencies lack resources or political will to investigate.

Adequate staffing for benefit agencies matters more than technology. Automated systems can flag suspicious applications, but humans need to review those flags and make decisions. Caseworkers need time to talk to applicants, understand their circumstances, and distinguish between fraud and honest confusion. When agencies are understaffed and caseworkers are drowning in applications, fraud slips through and eligible people get denied because nobody has time to carefully review anything.

Criminal prosecution for organized fraud schemes sends a message. The Minnesota prosecutions are appropriate because they target sophisticated criminal operations. When fraud is organized, deliberate, and large-scale, criminal consequences are warranted. But prosecution should be reserved for actual fraud—intentional deception—not for honest errors or misunderstandings.

Where to Get Help

For benefits program questions and information, visit your state’s official SNAP, TANF, or child care subsidy website. The USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service maintains detailed information about SNAP rules and requirements at fns.usda.gov. Your state’s department of human services website will have specific information about how your state operates its programs and what’s changed.

If you’ve made a mistake or are accused of fraud, contact your local legal aid organization. The Legal Services Corporation funds legal aid programs in every state and territory. Visit lawhelp.org to find the legal aid office serving your area. Legal aid attorneys can represent you at fair hearings, help you appeal wrongful denials, and advise you on your rights completely free if you meet income requirements.

Legal aid can help with administrative disqualification from benefits, wrongly denied applications, and overpayment repayment disputes that resulted from agency error.

If you’re concerned about fraud in a program you know about, you can report suspected fraud to your state benefit agency or to the federal inspector general’s office. Most states have dedicated fraud hotlines where you can report suspected fraud. Your state’s Department of Human Services or equivalent agency maintains fraud reporting information on their website.

Reporting fraud should be reserved for situations where you have actual evidence of intentional deception—someone you know is deliberately lying to get benefits, a provider you know is fabricating services. Don’t report someone just because you think they “don’t look like” they need benefits or because you disagree with their spending choices.

Review the eligibility requirements for your state ahead of time. The more you understand the rules before you apply, the less likely you are to make mistakes.

Monitor announcements from your state benefit agency. Changes to work requirements, verification procedures, or benefit amounts are typically announced through official channels before they take effect. Sign up for email alerts or check the agency website regularly if changes are being implemented in your state.

If you’re facing a fair hearing, gather all documentation supporting your case—pay stubs, tax returns, medical records, custody documents, correspondence with the benefit agency. Write down a timeline of what happened. If there were misunderstandings or errors, document them. Bring witnesses if they can support your case. The hearing officer’s decision will be based on the evidence presented, so the more documentation you have, the better.

If you’re required to repay an overpayment, negotiate a payment plan you can afford. Benefit agencies typically have flexibility in setting repayment terms. If the proposed repayment amount would create hardship, explain your circumstances and request a lower monthly payment. Document your income and expenses to show what you can realistically afford.

The Core Problem

The response to Minnesota fraud is treating all benefit recipients as potential criminals until proven otherwise.

The Minnesota schemes involved organized criminal networks that stole hundreds of millions of dollars through sophisticated fraud. Those operations deserve prosecution. But the policy response—enhanced verification for every applicant, biometric identification, expanded work requirements, tighter documentation demands—affects millions of people who have nothing to do with those schemes.

The data shows that actual fraud in SNAP occurs at 1 to 2 percent of benefits. That means 98 to 99 percent of recipients are following the rules. Yet the policy response treats everyone as suspicious. Every applicant must provide more documentation. Every recipient must recertify more frequently. Every transaction is subject to enhanced scrutiny.

If 98 percent of people are following the rules, your system should be designed to make it easy for those 98 percent to access benefits quickly and efficiently. Your fraud prevention should be targeted at the 2 percent who aren’t following the rules, using risk-based approaches that identify suspicious patterns without creating barriers for everyone.

Work requirement expansions don’t accomplish their stated goal. Research shows they don’t increase employment. They don’t reduce dependency. What they do is create administrative burden that causes eligible people to lose benefits. If the goal is to help people become self-sufficient, evidence-based approaches that work include job training, child care subsidies, transportation assistance, and education support. Work requirements aren’t among them.

Food restriction waivers are similarly misguided. The premise is that SNAP recipients make poor nutritional choices and need the government to restrict what they can buy. But research on food restrictions shows they don’t improve nutrition outcomes, they create stigma and shame for recipients, and they’re expensive to administer. If the goal is better nutrition, evidence-based approaches include nutrition education, incentives for purchasing fruits and vegetables, and addressing food deserts. Restrictions aren’t among them.

Legitimate policy goals—preventing fraud, encouraging work, improving nutrition—are being used to justify measures that don’t accomplish those goals but do make life harder for people who are already struggling.

What Happens Next

The federal crackdown on welfare fraud is real, it’s expanding, and it will affect how you interact with benefits programs if you receive them. Over the next year, expect application processes to become more complicated, verification requirements to expand, processing times to lengthen, and work requirements to tighten.

Congressional hearings in January and February 2026 will likely produce new legislation. Some of that legislation will be reasonable—enhanced data sharing between agencies, increased funding for fraud investigation, better oversight of high-risk programs. Some of it will be punitive—expanded work requirements, tighter time limits, more stringent verification that creates barriers for legitimate applicants.

Republican-controlled states will likely implement aggressive fraud prevention measures quickly, with less concern about whether those measures create barriers for eligible people. Democratic-controlled states will move more cautiously, trying to balance fraud prevention with access. But all states will face pressure to demonstrate they’re taking fraud seriously.

Data matching systems, biometric verification, and AI-based fraud detection are becoming standard across the country. These systems will catch some fraud, but they’ll also create false positives that harm legitimate recipients. The question is whether states will invest in human review to correct those false positives or whether they’ll let automated systems make final decisions.

More defendants will be charged in Minnesota prosecutions. More convictions will be secured. Each new case will generate headlines and political pressure for additional crackdowns. The investigation has momentum, and that momentum will drive policy changes regardless of whether those changes are evidence-based.

For people receiving benefits, this means you need to be more careful about documentation, more proactive about reporting changes, more prepared for delays and requests for additional information. Know your rights and know where to get help if you’re wrongly denied or accused of fraud.

For people thinking about applying for benefits, the process will be harder than it was a year ago. You’ll need more documentation. You’ll face more scrutiny. You’ll wait longer for decisions. But if you’re eligible and you need help, don’t let the complexity deter you. The benefits exist for a reason, and you have a right to access them if you meet the requirements.

The Bottom Line

The Minnesota fraud was real and deserved prosecution. But the policy response is affecting millions of people who had nothing to do with those schemes. Enhanced verification requirements, expanded work requirements, tighter documentation demands—these measures will catch some fraud, but they’ll also prevent eligible people from accessing benefits they need and are entitled to.

The question is whether we can design fraud prevention measures that target actual fraud without creating impossible barriers for everyone else. The answer is yes—but it requires more nuance, more investment in human review, more attention to unintended consequences, and more commitment to serving the people these programs are designed to help than most politicians are willing to provide.

Fraud prevention is being used as justification for measures that have long been on the conservative policy wish list—work requirements, benefit restrictions, tighter eligibility—regardless of whether those measures prevent fraud or accomplish their stated goals.

If you’re receiving benefits or thinking about applying, understand that the system is getting harder to navigate, but you still have rights and you still have access to help. Document everything. Know the rules. Get legal help if you need it. Don’t let the complexity or the stigma prevent you from accessing benefits you’re entitled to.

Ask whether proposed measures target fraud or whether they make the system harder for everyone. Ask whether the measures are evidence-based or political theater. Ask whether the cost of fraud prevention is proportionate to the amount of fraud being prevented.

The Minnesota fraud cases revealed real problems that deserve real solutions. But those solutions should be targeted, proportionate, and designed to catch actual criminals without harming the millions of people who are following the rules and trying to get by.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.