How many defendants are still awaiting trial in Minnesota fraud investigations and which programs do their indictments allege were targeted?
Executive summary
Federal prosecutors and the Department of Justice have charged roughly 98 defendants in the sprawling Minnesota fraud investigations, but open-source reporting shows a significant portion of those charged have already pleaded guilty or been convicted, leaving an estimated several dozen defendants still awaiting trial; precise court-by-court counts are not uniformly reported, creating a range rather than a single definitive number [1] [2] [3]. The indictments and investigative referrals span a set of programs tied to pandemic-era nutrition efforts and a wide array of Medicaid and social‑services contracts — most prominently the Feeding Our Future child‑nutrition scheme, Medicaid‑funded housing and behavioral health services, Early Intensive Developmental and Behavioral Intervention (EIDBI)/autism therapy, and other home‑and‑community services [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. How many defendants are charged and how many remain to be tried — the messy arithmetic of a sprawling docket
The Department of Justice and White House releases have reported that 98 defendants have been charged in Minnesota fraud‑related cases, a figure used repeatedly by federal and executive sources describing the ongoing prosecutions [1] [6]. Multiple news outlets and congressional statements, however, report large numbers of guilty pleas and convictions: a CBS/aggregated news review and reporting indicates “upwards of 75” defendants involved in the Feeding Our Future matter and that more than 70 defendants had pleaded guilty or been convicted across the broader set of probes [4] [2]. The New York Times and other outlets cite federal prosecutors saying 59 people have been convicted so far in related schemes, while PBS and other reporting give nearby tallies (57–59) — producing a defensible working range [3] [8]. Subtracting the convicted/pleaded range from the DOJ’s 98 charged yields an estimated 28–41 defendants who remain formally awaiting trial or resolution in the public record, but reporting does not provide a certified court‑by‑court ledger that would produce a single, exact current count [1] [2] [3].
2. Which programs do indictments and investigations allege were targeted — a list driven by federal filings and investigative reporting
Across indictments, committee letters, and major reporting, the investigations focus on a cluster of programs: the Feeding Our Future federal child nutrition program (the core COVID‑era case alleging roughly $250 million stolen), a series of Medicaid‑funded programs including housing stabilization services and other Medicaid home‑and‑community services, Early Intensive Developmental and Behavioral Intervention (EIDBI) or Medicaid‑funded autism therapy for children, Evergreen Recovery and other behavioral‑health related contracts, and various childcare and daycare payment streams mentioned in public statements and reporting [4] [3] [5] [6] [7]. Federal investigators and fact‑checking outlets have explicitly named at least 14 Minnesota‑linked programs under scrutiny, with examples cited repeatedly: Feeding Our Future (child nutrition), Medicaid housing services, autism therapy/EIDBI, Housing Stabilization Services, and Evergreen Recovery among them [5] [6] [1].
3. What the numbers and program list do — and do not — tell the public
The assembled figures show the scale and breadth of the probe: hundreds of millions in alleged loss tied to Feeding Our Future alone and a constellation of Medicaid and social‑services programs flagged for alleged overbilling, identity‑theft schemes, and billing for services not rendered [4] [3] [5]. Yet the public record available through news outlets and committee releases leaves gaps: outlets use different baselines (charged vs. convicted vs. pleaded), and official court dockets for each defendant are not centralized in the reporting used here, so the “still awaiting trial” number is necessarily an estimate derived from juxtaposing DOJ’s charged count with varied counts of convictions and pleas in secondary reporting [1] [2] [3]. Local outlets report discrete trial schedules — for example, seven Feeding Our Future defendants were listed for an April trial motion on venue — underscoring that individual trial calendars will shift the count as pleas, convictions, and trial dates proceed [9].
4. Political context, motives and reporting caveats
Congressional oversight and White House statements have amplified the numeric totals and program list, often with political framing that can push toward the largest possible aggregate figures [10] [1]. Independent newsrooms — CBS, NYT, PBS, Axios and state outlets — provide corroborating program lists and varying conviction tallies but also document uncertainty and evolving case status, so any definitive “still awaiting trial” figure should be treated as provisional until checked against the federal and state dockets for each defendant [4] [3] [8] [2].