Josh Jacobs stays with Packers as NFL reviews new claims

This started late Thursday night, when NBC26 in Green Bay got hold of the police case file from Jacobs' May arrest. The file had a lot more in it than the one incident.

Matt Schneidman

@mattschneidman

Three more women accused Josh Jacobs of physical abuse on top of May 2026 victim, according to a Hobart-Lawrence PD case file obtained by @NBC26. One told HLPD she didn't report abuse from 2022 b/c Jacobs told her she could be deported. That woman's info was given to police by May 2026 victim: t.co/5xkbWS94Ma

Some background. Jacobs was arrested on May 23 after an incident with a woman at his home near Green Bay. In September he pleaded no contest to misdemeanor battery and damage to property, and got a $1,000 fine and a deferred judgment agreement. He spent 6 games on the Commissioner's Exempt List and came back in Week 7. Per the file, the other women came forward while police were still working the May case. One of them had been named to police by the May victim herself.

By Saturday morning the league had put out a one-line statement: it "will review these allegations as part of the investigation which has remained open." There was no immediate change to his status, and he stayed eligible to play. The bigger problem came that afternoon, when it emerged that the NFL apparently found out the same way everybody else did.

Albert Breer

@AlbertBreer

My understanding is the NFL learned about the previous 3 alleged incidents involving Packers RB Josh Jacobs at the same time media outlets did—with a FOIA request fulfilled. Obviously, if Jacobs wasn't honest with the NFL, adds another layer. Either way, NFL is investigating.

ProFootballTalk

@ProFootballTalk

The NFL "will review" the new allegations against Packers RB Josh Jacobs. t.co/Bv4RSwy4Cq

That's the whole thing. A no-contest plea to 1 incident is one case. If Jacobs told the league May was a one-time thing and the file says otherwise, that's a credibility problem, and it's a different case. His lawyers saw it coming. On Friday they said the Brown County DA had these "uncorroborated, old, and previously unreported allegations for months" and still charged only 2 misdemeanors.

On Sunday they went further. David Z. Chesnoff, Richard A. Schonfeld and Clarence F. Duchac III put out a long statement calling the claims "unsupported and stale allegations." The NFL and the Packers both declined to comment on it.

Ian Rapoport

@RapSheet

A strong statement from the lawyers of #Packers RB Josh Jacobs — David Z. Chesnoff, Richard A. Schonfeld, and Clarence F. Duchac III — on the recent release of public records.

Then on Monday it was LaFleur's turn at the podium. The headline was that he anticipates Jacobs being part of the team going forward and the team will let the NFL do its process. The more interesting part was the touchdown celebration. In Thursday's game against Carolina, Jacobs put his hands behind his back after scoring. He has said it was a nod to the gospel song "Break Every Chain" and had nothing to do with his legal case. LaFleur didn't argue with the explanation. He just made it clear the optics were bad either way.

Matt Schneidman

@mattschneidman

Matt LaFleur says Josh Jacobs needs to be more aware of the optics surrounding his TD celebration, regardless of his explanation for it. LaFleur talked with Jacobs about that and will keep that convo private.

Football-wise, Green Bay clearly wants him on the field. In 2 games since coming back, Jacobs has 32 carries for 75 yards and a rushing touchdown, plus 11 catches for 68 yards and 2 more scores. But that isn't up to LaFleur. The investigation is still open, the league now has 3 more accusers' accounts it says it never had, and the question is whether Jacobs was straight with the NFL about May. The answer to that decides whether this ends with the plea deal or with a suspension.