A Minnesota restaurant owner has been sentenced to 30 years in federal prison for his role in a massive fraud scheme that stole millions of dollars from a government-funded child nutrition program during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Salim Said, the operator of Safari Restaurant in Minneapolis, was convicted of participating in a scheme that submitted fraudulent claims for meals that were never served to children. Federal prosecutors said Said was responsible for approximately $44 million in fraudulent reimbursements, including funds obtained through other participants he recruited into the operation.

According to federal prosecutors, Said repeatedly submitted false reimbursement claims that dramatically inflated the number of meals his restaurant and associated distribution sites supposedly provided to underprivileged children.

In one particularly striking example, Said claimed his operation distributed approximately 6,000 meals per day. However, FBI surveillance cameras recorded only about 40 people collecting food daily at the monitored location.

Prosecutors said the discrepancy demonstrated the extent of the fraudulent reporting used to obtain federal funds.

For 21 consecutive months, Said submitted thousands of fraudulent reimbursement claims, falsely representing that meals had been provided to children in need. Investigators determined that children listed in many of the reimbursement records were entirely fictitious.

The scheme exploited temporary changes to federal child nutrition programs during the COVID-19 pandemic. When schools closed, the federal government expanded meal distribution programs to allow restaurants and other organizations to provide food to children outside traditional school settings.

Prosecutors said Said and other participants took advantage of the relaxed program requirements by fabricating meal distribution records and collecting millions of dollars in government reimbursements.

Federal investigators also uncovered substantial personal purchases made with proceeds from the fraudulent operation.

According to prosecutors, Said purchased a $1.2 million residence, invested in commercial real estate, and acquired an $87,000 pickup truck while benefiting from the scheme.

During sentencing, U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel condemned Said for using taxpayer-funded assistance intended for vulnerable children to enrich himself.

The judge said his actions had not only deprived taxpayers of millions of dollars but had also damaged Minnesota's reputation.

Said, who was born in Somalia, denied wrongdoing during his 2025 trial, claiming that many of the meals had been delivered to off-site locations. However, he expressed remorse during his sentencing hearing.

His defense attorney, Barry Zone, requested a 12-year prison sentence and disputed prosecutors' characterization of Said as a principal architect of the fraud. The court ultimately imposed a 30-year sentence.

The case was part of the broader Feeding Our Future scandal, one of the largest pandemic-related federal nutrition assistance fraud investigations in the United States.

Feeding Our Future, a Minnesota-based nonprofit organization, served as a central participant in the scheme. Its former leader, Aimee Bock, was convicted of organizing the operation and recruiting restaurant owners and other participants to submit fraudulent claims.

Bock received a 42-year federal prison sentence and was ordered to repay $242 million.

Dozens of individuals have been convicted in connection with the investigation, which revealed how participants exploited emergency federal assistance programs by submitting fabricated documentation, falsely reporting meal distribution numbers, and collecting payments for services that were never provided.

The scandal also raised serious questions about oversight by Minnesota state agencies responsible for administering federal nutrition assistance funds.

State auditors found that the Minnesota Department of Education had received numerous complaints concerning Feeding Our Future but frequently allowed the organization to address compliance concerns internally rather than taking stronger enforcement action.

The fraud investigation subsequently became a major political controversy.

President Donald Trump repeatedly criticized Minnesota's Democratic leadership for failing to prevent widespread misuse of federal funds. The administration also cited concerns surrounding fraud as part of its justification for expanded immigration enforcement operations in the state's largest cities.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz announced in January that he would not seek reelection following sustained political criticism over the state's handling of fraud involving federally funded programs.

The case highlights the consequences of fraudulent activity involving public assistance programs, particularly those established to provide essential services to vulnerable populations during national emergencies.

Federal prosecutors emphasized that the stolen funds had been designated to feed children from low-income families, not to finance personal real estate investments, luxury purchases, or fraudulent business operations.

Said's 30-year prison sentence represents another major conviction in the continuing federal crackdown on the Minnesota child nutrition fraud scheme.

The Trump administration announced Wednesday that it will block imports from Chinese biotechnology firm BGI Group and two of its affiliates, citing alleged links to forced labor in Xinjiang, China's far-western ethnic region.

Beginning Thursday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will stop goods from BGI Group, a major player in genetic sequencing, along with BGI Genomics and MGI Tech. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the companies either source materials from Xinjiang or work with the regional government in the recruitment and movement of forced labor drawn from persecuted ethnic groups there, including Uyghurs. DHS said BGI Group holds controlling stakes in both affiliates.

DHS cites genetic testing in Xinjiang

In its announcement, DHS said credible information, including corporate and government reports, shows the three companies have supported genetic testing in Xinjiang. The department said the collection and analysis of genetic material helps Chinese authorities monitor, surveil and repress ethnic minorities, including through forced labor.

The action falls under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law at the end of 2021 in response to allegations of human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang. In August, the Trump administration added 43 Chinese companies to the law's blacklist, bringing the total to 187 entities. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has pledged to protect American workers from being undercut by foreign companies that rely on forced labor.

Beijing and BGI push back

China rejected the forced labor accusations and denounced the ban as political manipulation and bullying carried out in the name of human rights. In a statement Thursday morning, China's Ministry of Commerce said the listings contradict the consensus reached by the two countries' leaders, threaten the stability of bilateral trade relations, and that China will take necessary measures to protect its interests. Beijing has long dismissed the Xinjiang allegations as false, describing its policies in the region as counterterrorism and stability efforts.

BGI Group also denied the claims, stating Wednesday that it "has not engaged in any form of forced labor" and opposes forced labor in all forms.

Biotech becomes a new front

The move highlights biotechnology as a growing area of economic and technological rivalry between Washington and Beijing. Last week, the Treasury Department proposed new limits on U.S. investment in biotechnology, artificial intelligence and supercomputing in countries such as China.

BGI Group has drawn scrutiny from U.S. lawmakers and officials for years over concerns that its alleged government ties and access to vast amounts of genetic data could threaten U.S. national security and commercial interests. The company has emphasized that it is privately owned, does not serve patients in the United States and has no access to Americans' genetic data. The Pentagon has designated BGI Group, BGI Genomics and MGI Tech as Chinese military companies.

Congress did not pass a bill that would have barred BGI from working with federally funded medical providers, but late last year it approved a similar measure that did not name specific companies and instead called for a list of biotechnology companies of concern.

The latest trade action comes ahead of an expected meeting next month between Chinese leader Xi Jinping and President Donald Trump in Shenzhen, where BGI Group is headquartered. Xi may also travel to Florida in December for the Group of 20 leaders summit, which would mark a fourth meeting between the two leaders this year as they seek to keep relations steady under a trade truce.

The Trump administration on Wednesday filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to set aside a lower court order that has stopped construction of border barriers through the Big Bend region of Texas.

The order is a significant obstacle for one of President Donald Trump's signature initiatives. The administration has been moving quickly to build walls and related infrastructure along the southern border from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico.

Local opposition and the October injunction

In Big Bend, the project has drawn pushback from ranchers, residents, business owners and environmental groups. They contend that the plan, which combines walls, vehicle barriers and surveillance technology, wastes money in a region where illegal crossings have historically been low, and that construction threatens the area's landscapes. Opponents have brought several lawsuits challenging the work.

In one of those cases, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone on Oct. 2 issued a preliminary injunction halting construction across the roughly 500-mile project area while the litigation continues. The order covers Big Bend National Park as well as state-owned and privately owned land upriver and downriver from the park. Opposition had been building for months but intensified in August, when bulldozers were seen clearing land inside the national park.

The waiver dispute

At the center of the case are broad waivers issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security that let U.S. Customs and Border Protection skip environmental and other regulatory requirements that would otherwise slow a project of this size.

The government maintains that Big Bend sees a high level of illegal entry and that a 1996 law expressly gives the secretary authority to waive such rules when needed to build barriers and roads near the border. Challengers counter that Congress limited that power to areas of high illegal entry, and that the remote, rugged Big Bend region does not qualify.

Judge Cardone agreed with the challengers, finding that they "are likely to succeed on the merits of their major questions doctrine claim that the Big Bend Waivers were issued in excess of the Secretary's authority."

What is at stake

Trump has long promised a wall along the approximately 2,000-mile southwest border. Last summer, congressional Republicans provided the Department of Homeland Security with $46 billion to complete it, using a combination of 30-foot steel bollard walls, vehicle barriers and surveillance systems.

The administration warns that if Big Bend remains one of the few stretches without barriers, illegal crossings could shift there. Opponents respond that drones, surveillance towers and similar tools would be equally effective at a far lower cost than a wall.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away an appeal from former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, leaving intact a ruling that wiped out the $8.2 million defamation verdict he won over a political ad aired during his 2017 U.S. Senate campaign.

By declining to hear the case, the justices let stand a decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that set aside a jury's finding that the ad had defamed Moore. The outcome is a win for Senate Majority PAC, the Democratic-aligned super PAC that paid for the ad and has maintained that it was accurate.

Monday's order follows an earlier setback for Moore. In June, the Court denied his emergency request to freeze the 11th Circuit ruling while his appeal was pending.

Background of the 2017 race

Moore, known for his opposition to same-sex marriage and his support for displaying the Ten Commandments in public places, lost the 2017 Senate election after his campaign was engulfed by allegations of misconduct. Leigh Corfman accused Moore of touching her inappropriately in 1979, when she was 14 and he was a 32-year-old assistant district attorney. Moore denied the allegation. Other women said Moore had dated them or asked them out when they were in their late teens.

The disputed ad

Senate Majority PAC financed Highway 31, a group that ran a heavy advertising campaign against Moore during the race. Moore's defamation suit focused on one of its television spots. His lawyers argued that the ad combined statements and fragments of quotes from different news stories in a way that falsely suggested he had been accused of soliciting sex from young girls at a shopping mall. They described it as a "fabricated accusation, never made by any reporter," and said it aired 533 times in Alabama in the closing days of the election.

From jury win to reversal

A federal jury sided with Moore in 2022 and awarded him $8.2 million. The 11th Circuit later vacated that award, concluding that Moore had not proven the PAC acted with actual malice, the standard a public figure must meet to win a defamation claim.

The former mayor of Mississippi's capital city and the former City Council president have pleaded guilty in a bribery scheme one week before they were set to face trial.

Former Jackson Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba and former Jackson City Council President Aaron Banks pleaded guilty Monday to one count of conspiracy. Their pleas came after Hinds County District Attorney Jody Owens pleaded guilty last week and resigned. All three are Democrats.

Two other people — Angelique Lee, the Democratic former vice president of the Jackson City Council, and Sherik Marve Smith, a businessman and relative of Owens — had already pleaded guilty to bribery charges.

A November 2024 indictment accused Owens of taking at least $115,000 from two FBI agents posing as real estate developers and facilitating more than $80,000 in bribe payments to Banks, Lumumba and Lee in exchange for their help greenlighting a development project.

Lumumba, Banks and Owens could be sentenced to up to five years in prison. Their sentencing hearings are set for Oct. 15.

Lumumba, who previously called the charges a political prosecution, lost his reelection bid last year. His lawyers did not immediately respond to The Associated Press' requests for comment.

The National Conference of Black Lawyers, which has supported Lumumbat throughout his prosecution, has raised concerns about whether the FBI and prosecutors unjustly targeted Black elected officials.

"Our history tells us that it is necessary for us to have a very healthy skepticism about who, how and why certain people, certain geographical areas are focused upon," said Mawuli Davis, an attorney with the NCBL. "We've never not been targeted."

Davis said the NCBL intends to attend Lumumba's sentencing hearing and advocate for the judge to consider Lumumba's contributions to the community.

Banks' lawyer declined to comment.