Lead
Four of the prosecutors who led the federal case tied to the $250 million “Feeding Our Future” scheme have left the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota, officials and insiders say. The departures — disclosed in early February 2026 — mean the original trial team will not appear at the next court date; newer prosecutors have been assigned. The office’s roster has fallen to as few as 17 assistant U.S. attorneys, down from roughly 70 during the Biden administration, according to internal sources. The change comes as the final trial tied to the Feeding Our Future indictments is scheduled for April 2026.
Key takeaways
- Four lead prosecutors — Joe Thompson, Harry Jacobs, Daniel Bobier and Matthew Ebert — left the U.S. Attorney’s Office in recent days, removing the team that had spearheaded the $250 million Feeding Our Future prosecution.
- The District of Minnesota’s office now has as few as 17 assistant U.S. attorneys on staff, compared with about 70 earlier in the Biden administration, according to sources inside the office.
- Federal prosecutors in Minnesota have secured convictions of 62 people connected to the wider fraud scandal; estimated taxpayer losses exceed $1 billion.
- Feeding Our Future, the initial and largest scheme alleged in the probe, is accused of taking about $250 million while failing to provide meals it claimed to deliver.
- The final trial connected to Feeding Our Future is scheduled for April 2026; the newly assigned trial team is led by Rebecca Kline and Matthew Murphy, both hired into the office in January 2024.
- Officials and departing staff point to caseload pressures, structural changes (including cuts tied to the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE), and enforcement operations such as Operation Metro Surge as drivers of the staffing loss.
- The Justice Department has temporarily supplemented Minnesota with prosecutors from other districts, DHS attorneys, and military counsel, but those deployments have had mixed results in court and on the ground.
Background
The Feeding Our Future case was the first high-profile collapse in a broad, multiagency investigation of pandemic-era fraud in Minnesota. Prosecutors allege a nonprofit misrepresented its work feeding children and received roughly $250 million in public funds without delivering the promised services. That initial prosecution helped trigger scrutiny of multiple state and federal programs and prompted dozens of additional cases and investigations.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota has been shrinking for several years, officials say. By the time Daniel Rosen was sworn in as U.S. attorney in October 2025, staff counts had already fallen below 40, according to former and current officials. Departures, retirements and organizational changes under the Trump administration — including reductions associated with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — have been cited as contributing factors.
More recently, Operation Metro Surge, a federal immigration enforcement effort in the Twin Cities, has required substantial personnel and produced thousands of arrests and repeated confrontations with protesters. Sources say that the combination of intense caseloads, contentious local operations and internal structural issues created a difficult environment for prosecutors and contributed to the recent wave of resignations.
Main event
In early February 2026, four prosecutors who had been fronting the Feeding Our Future and related fraud prosecutions left the Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office. Joe Thompson, Harry Jacobs, Daniel Bobier and Matthew Ebert are the named departures; internal sources say they resigned or otherwise separated from the office in the days before the story surfaced publicly. Their exits remove seasoned courtroom leaders from a docket that includes a final Feeding Our Future trial set for April 2026.
The office responded by reassigning the case to two prosecutors who joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office in January 2024: Rebecca Kline and Matthew Murphy. Both are relatively new to federal prosecution work within the district and are taking over a complex, high-stakes trial that federal filings and past proceedings show involves multiple defendants and counts including conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering and bribery.
Justice Department officials have temporarily filled gaps with attorneys from neighboring districts (including arrivals from the Eastern District of Michigan), as well as Department of Homeland Security and military lawyers. Those attachments have not uniformly eased pressure: a DHS attorney temporarily assigned to Minnesota reportedly asked a judge to be excused after saying the assignment was untenable, and was removed from the local detail the following day.
The resignations come amid an ongoing stream of fraud cases tied to pandemic-era spending. Beyond Feeding Our Future, state officials shuttered a federally funded housing program for seniors and people with disabilities in August 2025 citing large-scale fraud; in September 2025 prosecutors charged eight people accused of submitting millions in false or inflated bills as providers in that program.
Analysis & implications
The loss of four lead prosecutors in a single office shortly before a major trial amplifies several risks: continuity gaps in courtroom strategy, delayed proceedings, and heavier burdens on the remaining staff. With roughly 17 assistant U.S. attorneys on hand, the district may prioritize cases, seek long-term detailees from other districts, or ask for additional federal resources to manage major dockets and local enforcement operations.
Institutional knowledge matters in complex fraud prosecutions. Prosecutors who lead multi-defendant, document-heavy trials typically carry years of case-specific context — from forensic accounting findings to witness management strategies. When those lawyers depart, successors inherit files but not always the same depth of experience, which can affect plea negotiations, trial readiness, and evidentiary presentation.
The staffing squeeze also has political and public-safety implications. Critics warn that understaffed U.S. Attorney offices can slow investigations into large-scale fraud and other federal crimes, while supporters of operational changes argue that reorganization and stricter oversight can eliminate inefficiencies. Either way, local partners — state prosecutors, investigators and social-service agencies — will feel the consequences of a thinner federal prosecutorial bench.
Finally, the fold-in of personnel from other districts and agencies is a partial but imperfect fix. External detailees may lack local expertise or face steep learning curves; courtroom friction and inconsistent performance have already been reported. In high-profile matters with significant public interest and complex proof, the quality and stability of the prosecution team can materially influence outcomes and public confidence.
Comparison & data
| Measure | Current figure | Previously reported |
|---|---|---|
| Alleged Feeding Our Future receipts | $250 million | — |
| Convictions tied to probe | 62 | — |
| Estimated taxpayer losses | Over $1 billion | — |
| Assistant U.S. attorneys in office | As few as 17 | About 70 during Biden administration |
The table summarizes the scale of the scandal and the staffing shift inside the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The Feeding Our Future allegation alone accounts for roughly a quarter of the documented losses in the broader Minnesota fraud probe; cumulative convictions (62) and estimates of more than $1 billion in taxpayer losses show the investigation’s breadth. Staffing levels have fallen sharply from earlier in the Biden administration, increasing reliance on detailees and interagency support.
Reactions & quotes
Former Justice Department employees and outside observers expressed alarm at the departures and framed them as a threat to institutional continuity. Advocacy and alumni groups said the resignations merit scrutiny and transparency about internal pressures.
“The mass exodus we’re seeing in Minnesota is alarming…the loss of institutional knowledge and expertise will destabilize the U.S. Attorney’s office,”
Stacey Young, Justice Connection (former DOJ employees group)
Officials inside the office and other observers pointed to management and caseload issues as drivers of resignations rather than strictly partisan motives, while some former staff have alleged pressure tied to enforcement priorities. One temporarily assigned DHS lawyer told a judge in blunt terms that the assignment proved unsustainable, and was removed from the Minnesota detail within days.
“This job sucks,”
Temporary DHS attorney (court remarks)
Joe Thompson, who had been a public face for several indictments and high-level estimates of fraud in state social programs, publicly described seeing far more suspicious activity than legitimate providers and has suggested that a large fraction of public program spending since 2018 warrants close scrutiny.
“We’ve seen more red flags than legitimate providers,”
Joe Thompson (former First Assistant U.S. Attorney)
Unconfirmed
- Claims that departing prosecutors were explicitly ordered to “violate legal and ethical responsibilities” by the current administration reflect an allegation made by a former DOJ employee organization and have not been independently corroborated.
- Estimates suggesting that half of $18 billion in state social-program spending since 2018 is fraudulent were advanced publicly by a former prosecutor as a working estimate; prosecutors have not provided a firm, court-admitted total quantifying actual fraud at that scale.
Bottom line
The sudden exits of four lead prosecutors remove experienced lawyers from a high-profile $250 million fraud prosecution and leave the District of Minnesota with a sharply reduced roster ahead of an April 2026 trial. That staffing reduction raises practical risks for case continuity, courtroom readiness and the pace of related prosecutions across the district.
How the Justice Department and local leaders respond — whether by long-term detailees, permanent hires, or organizational changes — will shape Minnesota’s ability to see major fraud trials through to verdict and to sustain other enforcement priorities. For the public, the immediate watch points are trial scheduling, the performance of the new prosecution team, and any formal explanations or audits about why senior prosecutors chose to leave.
Sources
- CBS News — news report on departures and case details (February 4, 2026)
- U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota — official office information and public filings