Good Fences Make Good Neighbors: Fraud in Minnesota is a Gift to Republicans

“The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.”

-Robert Frost, Mending Wall

Minnesota Has an Organized Crime Problem

Governor Tim Walz stood in front of the Apple Jack Orchards sign in Delano this week, trying to explain why the state is suspending payments to 50 additional providers in the Housing Stabilization Services program due to suspected fraud. The setting—an orchard, with Walz in a rumpled baseball cap and worn jeans—was designed to suggest he’s a regular guy. His explanation was a mix of word salad.

Walz delivered a muddled explanation of how more than a billion dollars has been siphoned from a program meant to help people find and maintain stable housing.

“Well, I think you’re always accountable for when things happen,” he said, “but I think the accountability piece that we’re going to have to try and understand is — we’ve seen fraud, whether it’s in United Healthcare, we’ve seen it in other places…”

This kind of deflection—pointing to private sector fraud—is not accountability. Nor is it leadership. Walz continued:

“We work with our partners in the counties and so forth, but I think on this one, the question I’m asking is, is the safeguards in place strong enough?”

Let’s answer that: No, they’re not. The safeguards have massive holes. And they are being systematically exploited.

If it wasn’t obvious after the Feeding Our Future scandal—or the other ongoing fraud cases in Minnesota—it should be now. The DFL must confront a hard truth: organized criminal networks are actively targeting state-funded programs, especially those meant for vulnerable populations. These are not isolated incidents. They reflect a persistent, coordinated failure to regulate and monitor the disbursement of public funds.

This failure is not just a local story. It is becoming a national one. It’s a gift to Republican campaigns—here in Minnesota and across the country. These scandals let them shift the conversation away from fraud among Trump-aligned politicians and instead paint Democrats as incapable of managing their own programs.

Fair or not, expect a wave of political messaging and media coverage in the coming year, as these blunders become ammunition. The sums are so large, and the oversight so lacking, that some commentators will begin to imply—if not outright claim—that this is intentional neglect.

That’s a problem the DFL cannot afford to ignore.

Why Mending Fences Is Important

The orchard fence is an apt metaphor for what’s happening with fraud in Minnesota.

Imagine an orchard surrounded by a fence. The owner leaves for the city, assuming the barrier will hold. In his absence, a hunter cuts a hole in the fence. He gorges on apples and hunts deer without consequence. It’s a great deal—free resources, no oversight. He tells his friends. They come too. Soon, they bring tents. When space runs out, they widen the hole, drive in trucks, and set up more permanent shelters.

Before long, the orchard becomes a village. So many people have arrived that it begins to resemble a legitimate community. But it isn’t.

Eventually, the noise, traffic, and damage prompt nearby neighbors to call the authorities. The problem, by now, is too big for any single orchard owner—or even the neighborhood—to handle. The fence wasn’t guarded. No one was watching. And now the cost of cleaning up the damage falls to everyone.

This is what fraud looks like when oversight fails. The DFL has launched well-meaning programs to support housing, nutrition, and health—but without sufficient controls. Bad actors have taken advantage. And not just isolated individuals. Coordinated groups now exploit the same weaknesses repeatedly, moving from one unguarded program to the next.

Instead of putting basic safeguards like background checks, audits, or enforcement in place from the start, too many leaders seem afraid to act. They worry about being seen as harsh, or worse, as targeting vulnerable groups. The result is paralysis. Even when someone is caught holding bolt cutters, some are more afraid of being accused of bias for questioning them rather than of addressing the likelihood of a breach.

Fraud networks are emboldened. Their earnings now allow them to insulate themselves—through legal threats, political donations, or influence campaigns. Meanwhile, legitimate community efforts risk being discredited by proximity.

We need to stop pretending that raising concerns about fraud is morally suspect, or that it is solely a Republican tool to discredit Democrats. Refusing to address obvious problems in the system makes it more fragile and prone to corruption. And in the long run, the people most hurt are the very ones the programs were intended to help.

The Halal Lending Hole Needs Mending

Invest ongoing resources to successful programs that stimulate local entrepreneurship. This includes programs like the City’s Ownership and Opportunity Fund, which allows local business owners to purchase their storefronts; zero- and low-interest loans — often known as ‘halal loans’; and technical assistance grants.

In Islamic finance, riba—interest or usury—is prohibited under Shariah law. While private Islamic financing is available through some lenders, it gave us pause to see Minneapolis potentially establish a public loan program based on these religious principles.

The idea of publicly funded “halal loans” raises serious constitutional questions. Government programs in the United States must not be tailored to religious doctrines—whether those of a mosque, church, or synagogue. Crafting a city lending policy to align with one specific faith tradition conflicts with the foundational separation of religion and state.

We apply this principle consistently. For example, we oppose legislation like Texas’s Senate Bill 10, which would mandate the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools. We also object to the use of public funds to support scriptural instruction of any kind.

For those who don’t subscribe to any faith—including atheists—these policies can feel less like inclusion and more like religious messaging imposed by the state. Families, not government, are responsible for religious education and values.

Even small signs of this blurring between religion and public institutions matter. At recent DFL conventions, scheduled “prayer breaks” have become routine. Why not simply call them breaks? If individuals choose to pray during that time, that’s their choice. But labeling them explicitly as “prayer breaks” sends a message that certain religious practices are being officially recognized by a political party. It’s an obvious attempt to gain votes from particular faith-based voting blocs.

Respecting religious freedom means keeping government and party structures religion-neutral—a standard Democrats should defend. Let Republicans own the blend of religious dogma and tax cuts for the wealthy.

In that same spirit, publicly sponsored “halal loans” risk crossing a line. Even if these programs are framed as zero-interest loans, the religious branding—paired with their promotion by an elected official—blurs the boundaries between religion and government.

Minneapolis already struggles with program oversight. If the city begins implementing religiously inspired loan initiatives without robust safeguards, it invites the same vulnerabilities we’ve seen in other state-run assistance programs. Programs launched in the name of assisting the disenfranchised and unserved become vehicles for fraud and abuse, hurting those they were meant to help.

We should be cautious about repeating that pattern. Well-intentioned policy still requires neutral, transparent design and rigorous oversight. Any public lending program should be religion-neutral in both language and structure, and carefully managed from day one.

The Purpose of City Government

There is room for debate about how much city government should take on when it comes to safety net programs. Minneapolis already sits within a tangled web of overlapping state, county, and municipal efforts—so tangled, in fact, that administering them effectively seems beyond the current capabilities of DFL leadership.

If Democrats are serious about rebuilding trust—at a time when their national unfavorable rating is at its worst in 35 years—they must move beyond optics. Staged photo ops and “Farmer Tim” costumes won’t cut it. What’s needed is a sober acknowledgment of the growing threat posed by organized crime networks.

This is not just a policy problem. It’s a credibility problem. Failing to protect vital programs from exploitation weakens public trust, damages the very people those programs are designed to help, and erodes the DFL’s claim to govern with competence and common sense.

Good fences make good neighbors. That includes political boundaries—and guardrails on public spending.

This article originally appeared in Better Minneapolis