“Families who rely on child care and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” said HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill.
The nation has been gripped by a wave of revelations about social services fraud, sparked by unfolding investigations in Minnesota that have exposed billions in misused public funds and led to Governor Tim Walz announcing he would not seek reelection later this year. That scandal sent shockwaves through state agencies and lawmakers, and now, California finds itself in the spotlight. After a recent statewide audit revealed that more than $72 billion in taxpayer funds allocated to social services programs have been flagged as high risk for fraud, President Trump announced it was time for a federal investigation into the Golden State.
“California, under Governor Gavin Newscum, is more corrupt than Minnesota,” the President said in a Truth Social post. “The Fraud Investigation of California has begun.”
While that investigation has yet to be completed, the administration acted quickly. This week, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced its decision to freeze access to certain federal child care and family assistance funds for five states (California, Minnesota, Colorado, Illinois, and New York) citing “serious concerns about widespread fraud and misuse of taxpayer dollars in state-administered programs.”
“Families who rely on child care and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” said Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill. “This action reflects our commitment to program integrity, fiscal responsibility, and compliance with federal requirements.”
In response, several major publications—including the San Francisco Chronicle—are framing the move as an act of political “retribution” against blue states.
This style of reporting leaves out critical facts. When outlets simply say that the administration is “cutting off billions” to “single out California and its Democratic leaders and voters” with no additional context, it frames Trump as a partisan bully. The fact remains that Trump’s HHS is not acting without justification. Under federal law, these programs require states to document how funds are spent and to maintain safeguards against misuse. According to the HHS, access to the frozen funds will be restored once states provide additional documentation and verification that taxpayer dollars are being used lawfully.
The freeze is a temporary compliance measure—and a basic exercise of federal oversight authority. States that accept federal money do so with conditions attached, including compliance with reporting and anti-fraud requirements. When those conditions are not met, the federal government has both the right and the obligation to take action. It’s a simple proposition. California is no exception.
Of course, these reports also gloss over the myriad red flags in Calfiornia—weak controls, lack of metrics to quantify how money is being spent, and limited enforcement capacity—that triggered the investigation in the first place.
If Democratic officials or sympathetic outlets believe the freeze is unfair, they could use their time and energy to call for greater accountability. They could call for Sacramento—and others—to demonstrate compliance. Produce the records. Tighten oversight. Enforce existing rules. Root out fraud before federal prosecutors do it for them.
But perhaps it’s easier—and more politically expedient—for outlets like the San Francisco Chronicle to instead use the development as yet another trite Trump hit piece.
Whatever their motive, the public’s not convinced—at least if their own comments section is anything to go by.
“The families know how to work the system and what to say to qualify,” comments user Michelle Wyrick Higginson. “Verify the applicants marital status, living situation and citizenship. This is not done. Currently anyone sharing housing can be considered homeless and do not need proof of income to qualify… For those who legitimately need the help it is a great program, unfortunately it’s not very well regulated.”
“I live in California and I approve of this,” one social media user responds.
“Let’s keep going!” comments another.
Add Comment