New Virginia Bill on Federal Benefits Draws Comparisons to Minnesota’s Alleged Fraud
“Props to Democrats for submitting a one-page bill that simply says ‘make fraud legal.’ It’s almost like this bill was intentionally written to recreate the conditions for the Somali Daycare scandal.”
On Tuesday, I reported on the flurry of new bills that have been introduced by state lawmakers in the days since Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s inauguration. The slate of proposed legislation includes tax increases, rollbacks of mandatory minimum sentencing requirements, and even a measure that would prohibit the hand-counting of ballots in statewide elections. Notably absent from these initiatives is any reference to “affordability” — the central issue Democrats campaigned on during the 2025 election cycle and one that resonated strongly with voters. But I digress.
In the meantime, lawmakers have continued to roll out new proposals. One in particular caught the eye of Christian Heiens, a self-described historian with a large following on X: HB 1369. This proposal stands out because of its similarity to the Minnesota law that enabled the alleged Somali day-care fraud.
HB 1369 states:
No state agency responsible for the administration of federal funds shall impose a requirement on a nonprofit charitable organization providing a federal public benefit to determine, verify, or otherwise require proof of eligibility of any applicant for such benefits.
Why it’s almost as if the Democratic members of Virginia’s General Assembly are trying to replicate the alleged day-care fraud scandal currently under investigation in Minnesota.
Heiens attached a copy of the bill with the caption: “Props to Democrats for submitting a one-page bill that simply says ‘make fraud legal.’ It’s almost like this bill was intentionally written to recreate the conditions for the Somali Daycare scandal.”
Props to Democrats for submitting a one-page bill that simply says "make fraud legal."
It's almost like this bill was intentionally written to recreate the conditions for the Somali Daycare scandal. pic.twitter.com/u5At3uW4IX
— Christian Heiens 🏛 (@ChristianHeiens) January 21, 2026
Heiens added, “This bill literally prohibits the state from verifying eligibility for federal public benefits when nonprofits distribute them, which essentially turns Virginia into a blind pass-through for federal aid. … We’re about to see a bunch of ‘Learing Centers’ pop up in Fairfax County.”
Hyperbole? Not really.
What other conclusion are we to draw?
By removing safeguards that block fraudsters from accessing public funds, Democrats are inviting abuse. Voters should be asking why they are pursuing these changes.
Here’s a theory: Like the Democrats in Minnesota, Virginia Democrats are inviting fraud because it serves their political interests. These lawmakers don’t care about fraudsters profiting from public funds. They believe that by tolerating this abuse of the system, they are creating a class of beneficiaries who will become politically beholden to them. These beneficiaries will then be more likely to support them at the ballot box to keep the gravy train going, and that will help them maintain their power.
I’d be interested to hear how our readers see it.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
make fraud illegal…again
they forget the part that they had actually changed
The problem starts with the federal congress that passes legislation tpo GIVE AWAY BILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS. No real controls after all its not their money to start with and they pass the money and responsibility to the states to manage. And the state is even further removed from the source of that money, the taxpayers and the state’s only guidance is spend the money before October 1! A lot of people are getting rich including state and federal politicians. Its easy money. Start prosecuting federal politicians and then work down. Lower our tax burden and lower the national debt. Right now Donald Trump is catching so much political heat from both parties, because he is cutting off all the free money the politicians steal from the taxpayers. Hurray for Donald J Trump!
If the people of Virginia want to waste their own money, that’s their business. As long as they’re not using Federal money for this I don’t care. They elected those Crooks and the retards are free to live with it.
I assure you, we don’t, especially those of us that didn’t vote for this.
Did you even read the bill? It’s all about federal funds and money. Any federal funds given to Virginia that provide a “federal public benefit” will be handed out to whomever walks up with outstretched hands to a Virginia non-profit without verification that the person or person actually qualifies for the “federal public benefit” or not.
It’s federal money. It’s your tax money being used. No doubt about it.
Many of these programs are both state and federally funded. The government needs to cut off federal funding.
I’m not an expert but I would think that when the state agency undertakes to administer FEDERAL monies, the state agency also commits to certain responsibilities, like, oh I don’t know (just spit balling), “to determine, verify, or otherwise require proof of eligibility of any applicant for such benefits.” New law would kind of conflict with that. .
It’s federal tax dollars, the ones we all pay to the IRS. It’s all of us, not just Virginians.
If this bill passes, Trump needs to find a way to stop all federal funding to the VA that goes to NGOs. In the name of protecting taxpayer dollars and safeguarding against fraud, don’t give them a penny.
If Congress passes a law that restricts funding to states that check eligibility, Virginia will get nothing. They did that with transportation funding and a national 55 mph speed limit in the 1970s and no courts struck that down.
Nope. The Supreme Court said explicitly that they only got away with that because the cut was only 5%, which was small enough that the states could afford to refuse to comply, and just absorb the cost. The court said explicitly that Congress could not condition so much funding on compliance with its wishes that the states would be left with no choice but to comply.
That’s why when Congress tried to condition Medicare funding on states establishing 0bamacare exchanges, the Court struck it down, because no state could afford to refuse, and that made it compulsion, which is unconstitutional.
So that precedent will not help you and in fact works against you. But I don’t think it applies here. Here Congress would simply be stating the truism that only eligible people are eligible, and ineligible people are not, and without proof of eligibility how can you possibly expect any money for this program? How do we know any of the people you’re giving it to are eligible?
Not only do I think this is so obvious that no court could possibly have a problem with it, I also think it’s so obvious that Congress doesn’t even need to get involved. I think in this case even the executive acting on its own could say “Congress authorized this money to fund eligible people, so if you can’t demonstrate that it’s going to them we can’t pay it out”, and I think this is so obvious the courts would have no problem with it.
So states, like banks, are now too big to let fail? How convenient.
Huh? I don’t get the comparison at all.
The constitution does not allow the federal government to compel the states to do its will. Including by conditioning funding on such compliance. Congress can persuade states, but not compel them. That has always been the case. And as the Supreme Court made it clear both in S Dakota v Dole and in NFIB v Sibelius, the key question is whether the condition imposed is coercive or merely persuasive. In S Dakota the amount at stake was small enough that it was merely persuasion, while in NFIB it was large enough that it was coercive and therefore unconstitutional.
I think there’s a clear difference on demanding basic eligibility requirements to be enforced v changing a speed limit or requiring States to expand Medicaid.
Here there’s not a demand to ‘do something new’ instead it is requiring States to do what they were supposed to be doing all along; restricting benefits to those who meet the eligibility requirements set by Congress.
Then there’s the issue of constitutional requirements on the President in the :take.care’ clause. The executive fulfilling that duty to eliminate fraud by demanding States spend the appropriation in accordance with the parameters of the appropriation set by Congress, signed into law by the Executive and accepted by the States in applying to participate seems like simple good stewardship.
Again, that’s exactly what I wrote!
Disagree. I don’t think the Supreme Court would strike down a condition that is directly related to ensuring that funds are spent for the purpose for which the funds are appropriated. That’s quite a bit different than conditions imposing new requirements.
That’s exactly what I just wrote! So what are you disagreeing with?
Milhouse, I suspect that you two are working on different understandings of “the purpose to which the funds are allocated”. If federal funds are earmarked for “assisting left-handed vegan jugglers”, you (correctly, IMHO) understand that if the Fed cannot be assured that the funds are going to this class of people, then it is under no obligation to authorize the funds just because someone says “Pay the left handed vegan juggler distribution organization”.
However, I think Wisewerds’ point is that the funds are allocated to support that class and there is a non-zero chance that the judiciary will say “You must spend those funds on supporting that class of people. Congress said so. Regardless of your reluctance to do so and petty requirements.”
Give me a break! Your first two paragraphs plus the first sentence of your third one are a truckload of nonsense. When a state gets boatloads of federal money it’s for some specific purpose—say, feeding the poor. There is an implicit duty to apply and enforce basic internal controls to ensure the funds serve the intended purpose—safeguards such as, ensuing eligibility of recipients, ensuring recipients are real not ghosts, and not allowing the NGO managers to siphon off funds to buy big houses, designer clothing, big Mercedes, etc. to enrich themselves.
They are not nonsense, they are what the Supreme Court says the constitution requires.
That is exactly what I wrote in the part that you agreed is not nonsense! So what is your objection? I explained what the constitution requires, and also why I think it wouldn’t apply in this case.
Watch the number of Democrat owned “Learing” centers popup all over VA!
Looks like Virginia is getting Abig Spamburger.
I live in VA and this is just one of many craptastic bills this month. $500 tax on suppressors. A new AWB that basically bans semiautos. Bans on hand-counting ballots. New taxes on all things firearms. A tax on deliveries to your home.
It’s going to be a long two years.
I find no fault with your theory, but allow me to expand.
Democrats want fraud on taxpayers to continue because they benefit from it monetarily. The fraudsters recycle significant funds from their criminal operations into Democrat campaign coffers.
And wasn’t there a recent attempt at jury-tampering in one of these fraud cases involving a suitcase full of cash? The probability approaches certainty that the fraudsters are making direct cash payoffs to Democrats who are making their fraud operations possible.
Great point! Why didn’t I think of that!
The Democrats’ welfare system always involves MAFIA-style money laundering. Democrat capos arrange a bonanza and get a “taste” of the ill-gotten proceeds (usually via PAC “donations”) in exchange for facilitating the fraud, running cover for the fraud (by calling anyone who notices it a racist etc.), and looking the other way as 90% plus of the proceeds get siphoned away from intended recipients. Not only the NGOs but also their highly paid officers and underling fraudsters all contribute to crooked politicians—this is how they become millionaires after only a short time in office. If your name is Clinton or Biden, your make billions and never get a serious audit.
Yesterday I read somewhere that Spanberger was likely being groomed to run for president in ’28. This fraud would be a good way to start the war chest.
Or something that the Republicans can remind voters of when it’s election time again.
You’re referring to the attempted bribery of a juror in one of the Feeding Our Future cases in Minnesota. 2024, if I remember correctly. The juror reported the incident to the judge and additional charges & conviction were the end result.
Yes, that’s it. And the bagwoman skimmed off a big chunk of the bribe money!
How do they even justify such a proposal?
I would love to hear interviews of these people trying to answer that.
I would like to “hear interviews” with REAL investigative reporters ASKING the pointed questions to MAKE them “try(ing) to answer that.”
Congress needs to ban any federal money from being distributed to any NGO’s. Include in the bill that any State found to have distributed money to an NGO directly or through a fraudulent disbursement is barred from receiving any federal monies for a period of 5 years. Make it simple, make it hurt. Then you will see real reforms.
That’s stupid, and also a leftist position. The Democrats would like nothing more than to prohibit all government work from being outsourced, and instead to have the government directly provide all assistance and do everything that Congress wants it to do. Of course the result would be an even more bloated public service, and even more waste and inefficiency. The whole point of using NGOs is to reduce the government role, which is a good thing, but it requires proper auditing.
I wholeheartedly agree! No money to anyone who doesn’t check eligibility status and stiffer fines and jail time to those who try to break the laws set forth in the agreements the US makes with the states receiving the money..
Need to immediately stop all federal funding and aid to any State that gives out benefits without verifying elogibility…
My guess is that ”the Greater West Virginia” movement will suddenly explode and West Virginia will suddenly become larger than what’s left of Virginia….