In the world of politics, timing can be everything—and sometimes, it's laced with irony. Just hours after a bombshell revelation surfaced about the Department of Human Services (DHS) engaging in hiring practices that blatantly violate civil rights laws, I found myself in a legislative hearing room. As a member of the House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Accountability Committee, I was poised to question the department's acting commissioner and its newly appointed inspector general. Unfortunately, since the revelation of this racist policy would come a few hours later, we couldn't grill them on the record about it. Instead, our focus turned to the pressing issue of fraud prevention in the massive $20 billion Medicaid program they oversee. What unfolded was a revealing display of priorities, deflections, and outright hypocrisy that underscores the deeper divides in how we approach welfare, accountability, and government efficiency.
The hearing itself was a critical opportunity to scrutinize DHS's mechanisms for safeguarding taxpayer dollars. Medicaid, a lifeline for millions, has ballooned into one of the largest expenditures in state budgets, and Minnesota is no exception. With $20 billion flowing through the system annually, the potential for fraud is enormous—ranging from improper claims to outright abuse by providers or recipients. We pressed the witnesses on their strategies: How robust are the auditing processes? What technologies are in place to detect anomalies in billing? Are there sufficient cross-checks with other agencies to verify eligibility? Their responses were measured, highlighting ongoing efforts like enhanced data analytics and partnerships with federal oversight bodies. But gaps remained evident, particularly in real-time monitoring and enforcement against systemic vulnerabilities.
Rep. @KRobbinsMN highlights that 318,000 Minnesotans are enrolled in the Medicaid expansion program—receiving over $10K in benefits each, well above the national average. We must root out fraud and abuse and protect care for the elderly, disabled, and children. pic.twitter.com/9h8YDcwaHj
— Minnesota House Fraud and Oversight Committee (@MN_Fraud_Cmte) July 9, 2025
Yet, the most compelling—and frustrating—aspect of the hearing wasn't the technical details of fraud prevention. It was the partisan theater that ensued when Democratic members of the committee took the floor. Rather than engaging substantively with the policies of an agency that has been under their predominant influence in recent years, they pivoted to political grandstanding. Their target? President Donald Trump and the recently passed "Big Beautiful Bill" in Washington, D.C., which introduces sensible reforms to Medicaid, including work requirements for able-bodied recipients. This legislation, aimed at promoting self-sufficiency and fiscal responsibility, has become a lightning rod for criticism, and my colleagues didn't hesitate to exploit it.
Democrats decried the new rules mandating that able-bodied Medicaid beneficiaries—those aged 18 to 65 without disabilities—must work, volunteer, or attend school for at least 20 hours a week to maintain eligibility. They painted a dire picture, warning that these changes would overwhelm county administrators, bogging them down in paperwork and compliance checks. "Why make it harder when we can just let people access benefits without barriers?" seemed to be their refrain. But this argument conveniently ignores the realities of the program and the choices that led us here.
Let's dissect their tactics, starting with the most egregious: outright misrepresentation. Time and again, speakers falsely claimed that the policy targets vulnerable groups like children, the elderly, and the disabled. This is not just misleading—it's a deliberate lie designed to stoke fear and garner sympathy. The truth is crystal clear: The work requirements apply exclusively to able-bodied adults in their prime working years. No child will lose coverage because they can't hold a job. No senior citizen will be denied benefits due to age-related limitations. And individuals with disabilities are explicitly exempted, with protections built in to ensure their access remains uninterrupted. To suggest otherwise is not only factually wrong but contemptible, as it undermines public trust in the very system meant to protect the truly needy.
Rep. @ImSchultz explains that Medicaid in MN now covers many able-bodied adults who wouldn’t qualify in other states. There’s dignity in work—and when more people participate in the workforce, it strengthens our economy and helps protect care for the most vulnerable. pic.twitter.com/jXu6D1xT5B
— Minnesota House Fraud and Oversight Committee (@MN_Fraud_Cmte) July 9, 2025
Equally telling was their refusal to own the "burden" they lamented. Democrats bemoaned the administrative strain on counties, framing it as a cruel imposition from the Trump administration. But who created this expanded system in the first place? Under federal law, there's no mandate requiring states to extend Medicaid benefits to able-bodied adults beyond traditional eligibility criteria. Many states—even progressive ones with larger populations than Minnesota—spend far less on Medicaid precisely because they haven't inflated the program unnecessarily. In Minnesota, however, Democratic-led expansions have broadened coverage to include those who wouldn't qualify under baseline federal guidelines. This voluntary choice has driven up costs and complexity, leading to the very administrative headaches they now decry.
The solution is straightforward:
If the burden is so intolerable, repeal the unnecessary expansions. Roll back the eligibility creep that has turned Medicaid into an entitlement for those capable of contributing to society. Other states manage with leaner programs, proving it's possible to balance compassion with accountability. By doing so, we could alleviate pressure on local governments, reduce fraud risks, and redirect resources to those who genuinely need them—without a single federal dictate forcing our hand.
But the pinnacle of absurdity came as I endured nearly an hour of these same Democrats railing against the "red tape" imposed by the new federal law. They portrayed the work requirement as an onerous layer of bureaucracy that hampers efficiency and burdens state and local entities. Coming from this crowd, the complaint rings hollow—bordering on comedic. These are the very politicians who revel in mandates, piling them onto businesses, schools, and municipalities with abandon.
Rep. @ImSchultz explains that Medicaid in MN now covers many able-bodied adults who wouldn’t qualify in other states. There’s dignity in work—and when more people participate in the workforce, it strengthens our economy and helps protect care for the most vulnerable. pic.twitter.com/jXu6D1xT5B
— Minnesota House Fraud and Oversight Committee (@MN_Fraud_Cmte) July 9, 2025
Consider their recent track record in Minnesota alone. Last legislative term, they saddled school districts with over 65 new mandates, from curriculum overhauls to reporting requirements that divert educators from teaching. They enacted a sweeping paid family and medical leave program, layered on earned safe and sick time policies, and added a separate pregnancy accommodations mandate—all of which demand extensive compliance from employers large and small. And that's not even touching the $10 billion tax hike they rammed through, siphoning funds from the economy under the guise of funding these initiatives. Businesses have groaned under the weight of these regulations, with compliance costs soaring and innovation stifled. Municipalities, too, face endless directives on everything from environmental standards to labor rules, often without adequate funding to implement them.
To witness these architects of red tape suddenly clutch their pearls over a simple work verification process for Medicaid recipients is nothing short of theatrical absurdity. It's a classic case of "rules for thee, but not for me." When it suits their agenda—expanding government reach into private sectors—they embrace bureaucracy as a tool for social engineering. But when federal reforms challenge their entitlements model, suddenly efficiency matters, and red tape becomes the villain.
This hearing wasn't just about fraud prevention; it exposed the fault lines in our approach to welfare policy. On one side, there's a push for accountability, self-reliance, and prudent use of public funds. On the other, a defense of the status quo that prioritizes unchecked expansion over sustainability. As we move forward, Minnesotans deserve better: transparent agencies, honest discourse, and policies that empower rather than entrap. Repealing unnecessary expansions and enforcing work requirements aren't burdens—they're pathways to dignity and fiscal health. If Democrats truly care about relieving administrative strains, they should start by examining their own contributions to the mess. Until then, hearings like this will continue to highlight the hypocrisy that plagues our system.
In reflecting on this week, I'm reminded that real progress demands confronting uncomfortable truths. The DHS hiring violation revelation—coming so close to the testimony—serves as a stark reminder of the need for vigilance across all fronts. As committee members, we'll keep pushing for answers, but the broader lesson is clear:
Politics must yield to prudence if we're to build a fairer, more efficient government.
