They Paid $495.6 Million for a Prison Offered at $75 Million. Bessent Called the Question a Waste of Time.

A federal government that says it's fighting waste paid $495.6 million for a shuttered prison that its former owner had reportedly offered to the state of Minnesota for about $75 million the year before. That's a difference of roughly $420.6 million. On October 30, KARE 11 reporter Lou Raguse asked Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to explain that gap during a fraud-related press conference. Bessent said he didn't know anything about it and dismissed the question as a waste of time. That's a remarkable response when the subject is taxpayers' money.

What the record actually shows

The property is the former Prairie Correctional Facility in Appleton, Minnesota. CoreCivic owned the 1,600-bed facility, and the Department of Homeland Security bought it in August 2026 for use as an immigration detention site. KARE 11's investigation reported that CoreCivic had offered to sell it to Minnesota for approximately $75 million in 2025. That earlier offer is not necessarily identical to a federal acquisition with different requirements, but it is a reasonable starting point for scrutinizing a public purchase at almost seven times the quoted price.

The contrast gets worse when you look at the local assessment. Swift County assessed the property's total market value at $14.75 million in 2026, according to local reporting. An assessed valuation isn't automatically a fair market sale price, and specialized corrections infrastructure can carry additional costs. Still, a public agency spending nearly half a billion dollars should be able to show the appraisal, negotiated assumptions, improvements included and value it expects the taxpayers to receive. That isn't a partisan request; it is basic procurement accountability.

The harder questions

Bessent was appearing in St. Cloud with federal officials to announce charges tied to roughly $41 million in alleged attempted Medicaid fraud. Those allegations deserve investigation. The reporter's point was that the federal government cannot describe itself as a relentless enemy of fraud and waste while refusing to answer why its own detention project is hundreds of millions more expensive than a recently discussed sale. The subjects aren't identical—one concerns alleged criminal fraud, the other public acquisition pricing—but both are about safeguarding money the public is forced to provide.

The Treasury Secretary's answer matters because of the way it reframed scrutiny as an interruption. He did not supply an appraisal, a reason the price increased, or a timeline for when the administration would respond. He said he didn't know about the transaction and said the question distracted from the press conference. A truthful admission of unfamiliarity would have been fine as the first sentence. The second sentence could have been a promise to obtain the records. Instead, the audience was told that asking was itself the problem.

Play video

6IXTV · ORIGINAL EMBED

There are real distinctions that investigators need to resolve. Was the 2025 offer firm or preliminary? What assets and environmental or infrastructure obligations were included in the 2026 sale? Did the federal government value a faster activation date, a different security plan or operating components that Minnesota wasn't buying? Did any independent appraiser sign off? The existence of a $420 million gap isn't proof of criminal conduct. It is enough to make the absence of a clear explanation indefensible.

The competing considerations

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison called for congressional review, while CoreCivic said the federal government determined the final sale price through its assessment process. The company also had a political-lobbying history that critics raised in connection with the purchase. Those associations are not evidence by themselves that the deal was corrupt. They increase the importance of releasing the actual procurement documents so the public isn't left choosing between accusations and institutional assurances.

6IX TAKE — an argument worth having

6IX TAKE — You can't get on a microphone bragging about a war on waste and then get offended when a reporter asks where roughly $420 million went. That is exactly when the question should be asked. I'm not automatically calling the price difference fraud; I want the documents that would either justify the sale or show how bad the decision was. If DHS has a defensible appraisal, publish it. If the facility included major upgrades, itemize them. If officials paid a huge premium because they were rushing to expand immigration detention, say so and let taxpayers decide whether that was a wise priority. What irritates me is the idea that accountability only applies to people the government is prosecuting. Public officials spend money that isn't theirs. The burden of explaining it should not be treated as some disrespectful inconvenience.

What comes next

The unanswered question remains simple: what made this property worth nearly half a billion federal dollars in 2026 when a state had been discussing a sale for a fraction of that amount? Until procurement records answer it, the public deserves more than a change of subject.