I one hundred percent agree with this. I did a detail at the misdemeanor section of the USAO from the federal agency I worked at and I can say that just expanding jury trials alone would vastly increase the amount of resources needed to prosecute these cases. On a typical court day, we'd have a docket of anywhere from 25-75 cases, and many days when multiple cases were set for trial. They often would not go for various reasons (defendant didn't show up, case pleaded out, defense counsel wanted more time to review several GBs of body worn camera), but if they did go you'd often get handed a case jacket from a colleague who already had a trial and have to try the case on the fly before a judge. Jury trials would make this impracticable (you need so much more prep to present to a jury than a judge) and would hinder the prosecution of misdemeanors, many of which are quality-of-life crimes (for example, car window smash-and-grabs). None of this to mention as well the burden on the citizenry because a defendant wants to have 12 people consider whether he or she shoplifted from Target.
I see online that people are always blaming the USAO for not being diligent enough in prosecuting crimes. What I don't think people realize is how stretched thin the USAO is. They also don't realize that one of the Public Defender Services' overarching goals is to create busywork and delay for the USAO, making it harder for the USAO to prosecute their clients. The less time the USAO has to devote to cases, the more it needs to focus on the low hanging fruit and less on the more marginal (but still real) criminal cases. That end result appears to be exactly the intended goal.