P
Minnesota Somali-Linked Daycare and Welfare Fraud: Key Enablers and Answers
Overview of the Fraud Schemes (as of December 30, 2025)
Multiple large-scale fraud cases in Minnesota involve federal and state funds intended for child nutrition, childcare assistance (CCAP), autism therapy, and other services. The most notable is the Feeding Our Future case ($250M+ stolen), with additional schemes in daycare and Medicaid estimated at $1B–$9B total. Defendants are predominantly (70–90%) of Somali descent. Funds were used for luxury purchases and real estate; some allegedly reached overseas, including terror-linked groups.
Enablers include relaxed pandemic rules, inadequate oversight by Minnesota DHS/MDE, and hesitation in enforcement due to discrimination lawsuit threats (e.g., Feeding Our Future sued the state, halting probes). No specific state laws explicitly favor immigrants; rather, political sensitivities and fear of racism accusations contributed to delayed action. Early whistleblowers (e.g., 2018 FOX 9 reports, DHS internal warnings) saw limited state response until federal intervention.
1. Who is helping the Somalians fill out paperwork for funding?
Primarily internal Somali community networks and family/relatives. In cases like autism therapy fraud, defendants recruited parents from the community and handled qualifications/paperwork themselves. Nonprofits like Feeding Our Future assisted sponsored sites with reimbursements, often via shell entities.
2. Who is certifying the daycare workers?
Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) and Department of Children, Youth, and Families. Requirements include background checks and training, but oversight was lax; many used unqualified relatives (e.g., 18-19-year-olds with no training) while claiming certification.
3. Who is helping them with the real estate process?
Fraud proceeds funded purchases directly (e.g., shell companies like those in indictments). Community-linked networks laundered money for properties in U.S., Kenya, and Turkey. No external non-community assistants prominently identified.
4. Who is helping them find buildings for daycares?
Internal community insiders and fraud networks selected low-profile or shared buildings. Many “ghost” centers operated from reused or clustered sites with minimal visibility.
5. How are they passing the extensive safety inspections?
Inspections were infrequent, often announced, or insufficient due to staffing shortages and relaxed rules. Violations (e.g., no children present, unsafe conditions) were cited but centers remained licensed. Recent unannounced visits (post-2025 video) found mixed results; some no fraud, others closed.
6. Who is writing their curriculum for them? No evidence of external curriculum assistance. Many centers were non-operational (”ghost” facilities) with no children or programming, so little/no real curriculum existed. Fraud centered on false billing rather than actual services.
Sources include federal indictments, FBI/DHS statements, news reports (CNN, Fox, Reuters, Star Tribune), and court documents. Ongoing federal surges (FBI, DHS, ICE) are investigating further amid 2025 viral reports.