How about MN Somalia gang charges and cases since covid
Executive summary
Federal prosecutors in Minnesota have charged dozens in what officials call massive COVID-era fraud tied to nonprofit Feeding Our Future and related schemes, with alleged losses reported in ranges from about $240 million to $300+ million and sometimes framed in broader reporting as up to $1 billion [1] [2] [3]. Some outlets and commentators — including City Journal and allied reports — claim stolen funds flowed to al-Shabaab in Somalia; federal authorities say they are investigating potential links but have not publicly filed terrorism-support charges in the fraud cases [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. What prosecutors have charged and the scale of the alleged fraud
Federal prosecutors announced sweeping criminal cases tied to COVID-era child nutrition programs and nonprofit operators in Minnesota, describing one central matter — Feeding Our Future and affiliates — as responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars taken from programs meant to feed children, with reporting citing figures such as $240 million and $300 million [1] [8] [2]. Local and national outlets describe “dozens” of defendants and more than 70 people connected to some allegations, and authorities called the affair among the largest COVID fraud schemes in the U.S. [2] [1].
2. Allegations connecting funds to Somalia and al‑Shabab — claims and limits
Investigative pieces in City Journal and some follow-up reporting assert that millions of stolen dollars were wired back to Somalia and ultimately reached al‑Shabab; those pieces rely on unnamed counterterrorism and law‑enforcement sources and human intelligence accounts to make the link [5]. Several news organizations report that the Treasury and other federal actors said they were looking into whether diverted funds reached al‑Shabab, but public charging documents in the fraud prosecutions have not included material‑support‑for‑terrorism counts, and reporting stresses that concrete evidence tying defendants to al‑Shabab has not been made public in court filings [4] [6] [7].
3. How mainstream outlets describe the evidence and investigations
Major outlets including PBS, Reuters and Los Angeles Times note that while investigations and political statements have raised the question of transfers to terrorist groups, “little evidence has emerged so far to prove a link,” and federal prosecutors have not charged defendants specifically with providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations in the fraud cases [4] [9] [7]. Those outlets report ongoing probes and political pressure, but they also underline the gap between allegations in some opinion and investigative pieces and formal indictments made public to date [4] [9].
4. Political reactions and the risk of broad-brush framing
The fraud story has become a political lever. President Trump and some Minnesota Republicans have used the reporting to call for enforcement actions and to revoke protections for Somali migrants, framing the issue as evidence of “Somali gangs” or terrorist funding [7] [10]. Somali community leaders and Minnesota officials — including Rep. Ilhan Omar and local city leaders — have pushed back, saying broad accusations risk victimizing an entire community for crimes alleged to have been committed by a subset of individuals and demanding specific evidence [11] [12].
5. Sources diverge on scale and certainty — follow the public record
Estimates of total loss vary widely across outlets and commentators: some reporting centers the federal estimate around $240–300 million tied to Feeding Our Future [8] [2] [1], while other accounts or opinion pieces assert much larger totals (including some references to $1 billion) based on aggregations or extrapolations [3] [5]. The most reliable public facts — charges announced by federal prosecutors and the numerical figures they cited in court filings or press conferences — should be the baseline; other claims about money ending up with al‑Shabab are reported by outlets citing anonymous sources and remain under investigation per the Treasury and other officials [7] [6] [5].
6. What reporting does not (yet) show
Available sources do not mention any publicly filed federal charges against the named fraud defendants for providing material support to al‑Shabab or other terrorist organizations; nor do they provide court‑document‑level evidence in open filings proving that stolen funds conclusively reached al‑Shabab [4] [7]. Several investigative pieces cite confidential sources and counterterrorism officials; those accounts are serious but not the same as prosecutors’ charging documents or publicly disclosed financial tracing presented at trial [5] [13].
7. Bottom line and what to watch next
Follow court dockets and formal agency releases for decisive developments: criminal indictments, asset‑forfeiture filings, Treasury or DOJ public statements and any unsealed financial‑trace evidence. Current mainstream reporting confirms large fraud prosecutions and sizable alleged losses in Minnesota [1] [2], while claims that diverted funds funded al‑Shabab are reported by some outlets and under investigation by Treasury and others but are not yet reflected in public criminal charges for terrorism support [5] [6] [7].