A widening welfare fraud scandal, stretching from the Upper Midwest to New England, is shedding light on how taxpayer-funded programs are being exploited through loosely monitored Medicaid systems—often shielded by political malfeasance or left-liberal ideological reluctance to scrutinize abuse.
Though Minnesota and Maine appear far removed from one another, independent investigators say the same playbook is being used in both states: little to no oversight, politically connected nonprofit networks, and Medicaid billing practices that invite large-scale abuse. One of the journalists connecting the dots is Steve Robinson, editor-in-chief of The Maine Wire, whose reporting has revealed striking similarities between the two cases.
Robinson recently compared findings with Minnesota journalist Liz Collin, discussions that later reached a national audience via Tucker Carlson. What emerged was not a picture of isolated misconduct, but a pattern suggesting coordinated exploitation across state lines.
Robinson noted that although Minnesota expanded Medicaid earlier than Maine, the operational details of the fraud appear nearly identical. Highly organized groups, often with ties abroad, systematically establish service-provider entities that bill Medicaid at scale. “The resemblance between the two states is difficult to ignore,” he said, emphasizing that these are not random or opportunistic schemes.
In Maine, Robinson uncovered clusters of home-care companies registered at single addresses—locations where no legitimate business activity could be verified. Further investigation revealed that many of the same individuals were operating similar entities in Minnesota, frequently linked to the same properties and networks.
“These overlaps show up again and again,” Robinson explained, arguing that it defies the idea of unrelated scandals unfolding independently under different state governments. In his view, the evidence points to a single, multi-state operation rather than coincidental local failures.
He has gone further, suggesting that some of these networks may be supported by foreign political interests. According to Robinson, American welfare programs are being leveraged to generate remittance flows abroad—money ultimately funded by U.S. taxpayers who are already under economic strain.
One Maine nonprofit that drew particular scrutiny was Gateway Community Services, founded by a Somali-American refugee. The organization received millions in Medicaid reimbursements as well as no-bid contracts from the state government. What raised red flags was not only the funding, Robinson said, but the organization’s political entanglements, including activities resembling partisan outreach and close ties to Democratic Party figures.
The situation became even more unusual when Robinson discovered that the nonprofit’s CEO was simultaneously campaigning for the presidency of Jubaland, a semi-autonomous region in southern Somalia. At the same time, the organization was receiving roughly $5 million annually in MaineCare payments, additional state contracts, and nearly $700,000 in federal PPP loans.
This, Robinson argues, goes well beyond humanitarian assistance. It reflects a model in which public welfare programs are treated as profit engines, with minimal risk and extraordinary financial upside.
Suspected abuse now appears across multiple assistance categories, including daycare services, housing programs, and non-emergency transportation. “The same methods keep appearing,” Robinson said. “It’s the same structure, applied again and again.”
In Maine, personal support services have proven especially vulnerable. Under existing rules, providers can bill Medicaid for routine tasks such as cleaning or grocery shopping—services that are difficult to verify and may never be delivered. Even when audits raise concerns, Robinson noted, enforcement is weak. Funds are rarely recovered, and criminal prosecutions are almost nonexistent.
The result is a system that rewards exploitation while burdening taxpayers, many of whom receive diminishing benefits despite paying more into the system. According to Robinson, ideological blind spots play a role in why this persists. Legacy media outlets, he argues, are hesitant to investigate for fear of being accused of racial or cultural insensitivity.
The lack of scrutiny, he says, has allowed billions of dollars to quietly flow out of public coffers while attention remains fixed on cultural controversies.
At its core, this scandal represents a complete breakdown of trust. Citizens are asked to work harder and accept fewer services, while networks that manipulate the system operate with near impunity. It highlights why immigration enforcement, welfare oversight, and prosecutorial action are inseparable from maintaining a functioning social contract.
Until audits carry real consequences, prosecutors pursue wrongdoing, and oversight mechanisms are strengthened, these schemes are likely to continue.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/01/minnesota-maine-steve-robison-exposes-somali-migrant-networks/
