Can you say Embezzlement?

From RMN reader Flora.

By Nick Postovoit
December 30, 2025

Minnesota has become a stark example of how large-scale abuse of taxpayer dollars can be minimized through language rather than confronted with accountability.

Consider the facts. Federal prosecutors have charged dozens of defendants in the Feeding Our Future case, describing a scheme that diverted approximately $250 million from federally funded child nutrition programs during the pandemic. Court filings show that funds were claimed for meals never served, while money was routed to shell companies and spent on luxury homes, cars, and overseas travel. Guilty pleas and convictions have already been secured, and federal authorities continue to pursue additional defendants.

This is not hypothetical. These are indictments, prosecutions, and sworn admissions. Yet much of the mainstream coverage frames it not as a catastrophic failure of safeguards, but as “mismanagement” or “oversight gaps.” The story is often localized and stripped of broader implications — as if this were a one-off event rather than a systemic warning.

The same framing appears repeatedly at the federal level. Programs such as USAID and other emergency funding mechanisms have been criticized in audit reports for weaknesses in verification, monitoring, and enforcement, particularly where funds are rapidly distributed through nonprofit intermediaries. When abuse is discovered, the language quickly shifts to “complex environments” and “administrative challenges,” even when warnings were raised and controls relaxed.

Words matter.

Calling fraud “mismanagement” shifts responsibility from individuals to abstractions. It suggests that well-meaning actors made mistakes rather than revealing negligence, willful blindness, or structural vulnerabilities. It reassures the public that no fundamental accountability is necessary.

Independent researchers and outside accountability groups — including teams associated with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — have publicly examined government spending data and raised concerns about waste, abuse, and weak controls in large aid and grant programs. Rather than engaging with the substance of these findings, some media coverage focused on discrediting the messengers, labeling them “reckless” or “dangerous.” While DOGE has claimed to identify billions in improper spending, independently verified audits and legally confirmed fraud cases directly tied to their work have not been widely documented. This distinction matters: the claims deserve scrutiny, but assertions alone should not replace verified reporting.

Fraud on this scale is not a clerical error. It is not an unavoidable consequence of over abundant generosity. When whistleblowers raise alarms and are ignored, when safeguards are waived repeatedly, and when similar failures appear across multiple programs, the issue is structural. The FBI has acknowledged that it is actively investigating additional large-scale fraud schemes in Minnesota that exploit public funds, beyond the original child nutrition case.

Journalism must do more than report indictments after the damage is done. It should ask hard questions early and persistently: Who was warned? Who chose to loosen controls? Why did scrutiny decline where spending accelerated? Who was arrested, Who was deported? And why are investigators attacked instead of answered?

https://connecticutcentinal.com/when-fraud-is-rebranded-as-mismanagement-taxpayers-lose/