What specific statutory changes did the Minnesota governor propose after the Feeding Our Future audit, and did the Legislature pass them?

1. What the governor actually proposed: a $39 million anti‑fraud plan with centralized investigations

Governor Tim Walz put forward an anti‑fraud plan aimed at shoring up state oversight after the Feeding Our Future scandal; the administration described the centerpiece as creating a centralized investigations unit and other measures to strengthen state agencies’ ability to detect and prevent fraud, with a price tag of about $39 million in the 2026–27 biennium and $15 million in 2028–29 ^[1]. Session Daily’s reporting summarized the governor’s framing that stronger, centralized investigative capacity and funding were necessary to prevent repeat exploitation of federally funded programs that occurred during COVID‑era relief ^[1].

2. Why those statutory changes were proposed: the OLA audit’s findings and recommendation

The governor’s push for statutory changes followed the OLA special review, which concluded MDE’s oversight of Feeding Our Future was “inadequate,” documented rapid and abnormal growth in the nonprofit’s claims, and explicitly recommended that the Department of Education assess recent statutory changes to its investigative authority and promptly propose further legislative fixes as needed ^{[4] [2]}. The audit stressed that problems were systemic and that the agency should re‑examine the sufficiency of its legal authorities and internal controls rather than attribute failure solely to aggressive fraudsters ^{[2] [5]}.

3. How the Legislature responded during the 2025 session — scrutiny, committee creation, and no clear record of full passage in provided reporting

The 2025 legislative session was marked by intense scrutiny of nonprofit oversight and the creation of a new Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Committee, reflecting lawmakers’ appetite to examine agency authority and grantmaking practices in light of the scandal ^[3]. Reporting shows the session’s politics were complicated by a tied House, power‑sharing arrangements and sharp skepticism toward some nonprofit reforms, and while investigators and lawmakers held hearings on bolstering investigative authority, the sources at hand do not provide a definitive record that the Legislature enacted the governor’s full statutory package as proposed ^{[3] [1]}. The Minnesota Council of Nonprofits reported both the heightened scrutiny and that many of its preferred reforms were deferred amid a fraught political climate, suggesting compromise and delay rather than wholesale adoption ^[3].

4. Points of contention: statutory authority vs. agency action, and political headwinds

A central dispute in the public record is whether MDE lacked statutory authority to act aggressively or whether it had sufficient authority but failed to exercise it; the OLA urged clearer statutory tools and evaluation of recent changes while also faulting the department’s implementation and decision‑making ^{[2] [6]}. Politically, the scandal fed a broader push for tighter nonprofit oversight and spawned bipartisan interest in anti‑fraud tools, but the tied Legislature, committee bargaining and concerns from the nonprofit sector complicated passage of sweeping statutory changes during the 2025 session ^[3].

5. Bottom line: proposals were clear; the record here does not show final legislative adoption

The governor proposed specific statutory and funding changes — notably a centralized investigations unit and a multi‑million dollar enforcement and prevention package — in direct response to the OLA audit’s findings and recommendations ^{[1] [2]}. However, the documents and articles provided report debate, committee formation and partial administrative steps without documenting that the Legislature enacted the governor’s entire statutory package; therefore, based on these sources the final legislative outcome on those proposed statutory changes cannot be confirmed ^{[3] [1]}.