What to know about the threats on federal funds flowing to Minnesota

The Trump administration has intensified its confrontation with Minnesota through a series of funding freezes and legal actions that could impact billions of dollars in federal aid to the state. This unprecedented targeting extends beyond the deployment of federal law enforcement officers, now threatening essential programs serving vulnerable populations.

In recent weeks, Minnesota has faced an exceptional level of scrutiny compared to other Democratic-led states. The hostility became particularly pointed last month when President Trump referred to Minnesota’s Somali population as “garbage,” signaling a personal antagonism toward the state.

Governor Tim Walz, the 2024 Democratic vice presidential nominee and frequent Trump critic, recently announced he would not seek a third term as governor, citing the challenge of simultaneously running a campaign while defending the state against federal attacks.

The Agriculture Department delivered one of the first blows when Secretary Brooke Rollins announced a freeze on funding to Minnesota and Minneapolis. In a January 9 social media post, Rollins declared “No more handouts to thieves!” Her letter to Governor Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey cited a major fraud case involving a pandemic relief program where 78 people were charged and 57 convicted.

Rollins indicated the suspension would affect over $129 million in awards, requiring Minnesota to provide payment justifications for all transactions since January 20, 2025—the day Trump returned to office. However, the department has not clarified which specific programs face cuts.

Based on the figures provided, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which helps approximately one in twelve Minnesota residents purchase groceries, appears unaffected by the initial freeze. Similarly, the National School Lunch Program, which provides critical meal subsidies for students across the state, seems excluded from the initial suspension.

Minnesota Agriculture Commissioner Thom Peterson expressed concern about the ambiguity, noting the state has begun receiving notices of some pauses, including funding for a University of Minnesota poultry testing lab. This creates dangerous uncertainty about who would cover costs if avian influenza is detected at farms.

In a separate action, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services informed Minnesota it plans to withhold $515 million quarterly from 14 Medicaid programs deemed high risk, following the rejection of a state-proposed corrective action plan. The affected programs include adult companion services, residential treatment, and non-emergency medical transportation.

The Minnesota Department of Human Services is mounting an administrative appeal against what it characterizes as an unprecedented and punitive action. “Minnesota cannot absorb the loss of more than $2 billion in annual funding for these programs without catastrophic consequences for the people we serve,” said Temporary Human Services Commissioner Shireen Gandhi.

Child care and social services funding has also come under threat. The Department of Health and Human Services announced freezes on the Child Care and Development Block Grant, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and the Social Services Block Grant for Minnesota and four other Democrat-led states.

This prompted a legal challenge from the affected states, with advocates warning that halting childcare subsidies would trigger layoffs and closures among daycare providers, creating ripple effects for all families using their services. A federal judge has temporarily blocked the administration from withholding these funds.

Adding to the pressure, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit on Wednesday challenging Minnesota’s affirmative action hiring practices. The suit seeks to end programs designed to diversify the government workforce and demands monetary compensation for employees allegedly impacted by these policies.

As these conflicts escalate, Minnesota officials continue to fight back through administrative appeals and legal challenges, arguing that the federal actions represent targeted political retribution rather than legitimate oversight measures. The outcome of these disputes will determine whether billions in critical support for low-income families, healthcare recipients, and children will continue flowing to Minnesota residents.