Federal investigators from the Trump administration went to Minnesota to examine widespread fraud allegations and faced hostile pushes from local activists, according to officials who say they were chased, harassed, and obstructed while trying to gather evidence on questionable state program spending.

Trump Officials Face Troubling Response When They Go to MN to Look Into the Rampant Fraud

The scene in Minnesota looked less like a fact-finding mission and more like a confrontation. Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and Jim O’Neill, deputy HHS secretary, report being followed, shouted at, and forced out of buildings within minutes while attempting to review suspected fraud tied to state programs.

This was not a polite disagreement over policy. Officials describe people flipping them off, surrounding their cars, and using intimidation tactics that made it impossible to complete routine oversight work. For federal investigators tasked with protecting taxpayer dollars, that level of obstruction is alarming and undermines transparency.

The Trump team made clear they were there to follow paper trails and demand basic accounting that any reasonable administration would expect. Part of the inquiry centered on billions in payments where documentation and receipts were not provided, and auditors later flagged what looked like backdated or newly created paperwork. That raises immediate questions about whether funds were properly allocated and tracked.

O’Neill said that old, lenient rules from the previous administration enabled sloppy or questionable behavior by making it easier to move money without strict verification. He described a shift in standards: the new team demanded receipts and proof of legitimate spending before approving continued distributions, and the state chose to resist rather than cooperate.

When officials asked for documentation for things like child care funding, the response from state leaders was legal pushback instead of transparency. O’Neill asked pointedly, “What are they hiding?” and noted that if the receipts were legitimate, they would be turned over without delay. That line of questioning gets to the heart of why oversight matters: accountability for public funds.

Dr. Oz gave a blunt appraisal of the reaction on the ground: “The mob mentality is stunning,” he said after being surrounded while working in a St. Paul building. He and O’Neill spoke with whistleblowers and met with the legislative auditor, yet the hostility they encountered suggests powerful local forces were intent on blocking scrutiny rather than answering basic questions.

There is a political angle to this resistance. Republican investigators argue that Democratic officials at the state and city level have been deflecting and obstructing in ways that shield mismanagement. In this telling, partisan loyalty and political theater end up protecting sloppy bookkeeping and jeopardizing the trust voters place in public programs.

From a practical standpoint, chasing off federal officials only deepens suspicion. If documentation can be produced honestly, cooperation would be the easiest path to resolving questions about past payments and compliance. Instead, the confrontational response fuels narratives that something improper might be happening.

The audit language cited by auditors mentioned “what appeared to be backdated or newly created documentation that did not exist before the audit,” which suggests an effort to manufacture compliance retroactively. That is exactly the kind of red flag that should trigger thorough federal review and, if needed, corrective action or prosecution.

Republican leaders supporting the federal probe stress that protecting taxpayers is nonpartisan in practice even if it looks partisan in politics. When billions flow through state programs without clear receipts, the public deserves answers and corrective measures, not obstruction and lawsuits that delay accountability.

The officials sent from Washington said they were undeterred, emphasizing that stronger standards and tougher oversight will continue. As O’Neill described, rolling back permissive rules and insisting on basic documentation are necessary steps to stop waste, fraud, and abuse in state-administered programs and to restore fiscal responsibility.

Facing hostility while doing routine oversight is an unpleasant escalation that should concern every voter who cares about clean government. When investigators are prevented from following a paper trail and meeting with witnesses, the public loses the transparency it needs to trust how funds are spent and who is responsible.

Those involved in the probe maintain they will press forward, asking direct questions and seeking the receipts that should accompany any legitimate program payment. The dispute in Minnesota shows why clear rules and cooperative audits are essential, and why obstruction only raises the stakes for federal intervention.