The Cost of Viral Accusations in Childcare

Why evidence, context, and restraint matter now more than ever.

Over the past week, a viral video has circulated widely online alleging widespread daycare fraud in Minnesota, with much of its focus on centers described as Somali-owned. The video shows a content creator visiting multiple daycare locations, filming brief encounters at the front entrance, and suggesting that, because he is not allowed beyond the door or does not observe children in common areas at that moment, the programs must not be serving children and therefore must be fraudulently billing the government.

For people outside the childcare world, the claims can feel convincing. Dramatic footage paired with a confident narrator makes it easy to accept the story without asking deeper questions, especially when the claims are amplified by politicians and commentators with a wider reach. The narrative also taps into an existing frustration around government spending and accountability.

But for those of us who work in childcare, as directors, providers, owners, educators, and administrators, the situation raises a different kind of concern. None of us believe fraud should be ignored. What is unsettling is how easily accusations can be made, spread, and acted upon without evidence. And how quickly those accusations can impact real children, families, workers, and entire communities.

This post is an attempt to slow things down and focus on what we actually know, what we don’t, and why critical thinking matters more than ever in a viral media environment.

---

A Few Important Things to Note

Before going further, it’s important to say this clearly. Fraud has occurred in Minnesota in recent years, and it is being investigated.

Federal prosecutors uncovered large-scale misuse of public funds across multiple programs, most notably in the Feeding Our Future case, which involved more than $250 million in misappropriated federal child nutrition funds and resulted in indictments and convictions. Federal and state authorities continue to investigate potential misuse of public funds across several programs that support children and families.

It is also worth noting that there have been legislative efforts in Minnesota to increase funding for fraud prevention in the state, as recently as this past spring. However, members on the Minnesota House State Government Finance & Policy Committee blocked the advancement of the bill. That decision adds important context to the current claims that the state has failed to take fraud seriously.

While this is important historical context, it is not what this post is about. This post is not questioning whether fraud exists or whether it should be investigated. Fraud should be uncovered, misused funds should be recovered, and programs operating illegally should be held accountable through proper legal channels.

This post is about a viral video, and the way allegations in that video have been presented, amplified, and treated as fact without verified evidence.

---

What’s Being Claimed (and What Isn’t Shown)

I watched the video so you don’t have to, and the reporting quality is even weaker than I expected.

The video features a content creator, Nick Shirley, who alleges that several Somali run Minnesota daycare centers are committing fraud by billing the state for children who are not present, based largely on brief, surface-level observations made during his visits.

The format follows a predictable pattern. He and a man identified as David, share figures showing how much funding each daycare center received over recent years. They then arrive at the centers, accompanied by a small crew (who is dressed in black and wearing face coverings) and ask staff how many children are present or attempt to enter the building. When staff do not answer the door, decline to engage, or refuse entry (which is not only appropriate but expected in licensed childcare settings), Shirley adds the full amount of funding the center received to an on-screen “fraud counter.”

What the video does not provide is just as important.

All of the so-called “evidence” presented relies on the creators’ own assumptions and moment-in-time observations, occasionally supplemented by comments from passersby or public data about funding and capacity. No billing records, attendance logs, audits, citations, or official findings are shown. Instead, the video substitutes implication for proof, presenting speculation as evidence.

Childcare fraud, like any serious allegation, cannot be established by visiting a facility at a single point in time or through informal questioning by unverified individuals. Attendance varies by hour and by day. Programs operate on different schedules. Some offer part-day care, flexible enrollment, or combined classrooms.

Additionally, a daycare director or owner refusing to allow unknown individuals into their building, or declining to answer private operational questions, is not a sign of guilt. It is appropriate and responsible practice. Childcare professionals are trained to protect children’s safety, privacy, and confidentiality. Allowing strangers into a licensed childcare environment or discussing enrollment, attendance, or billing with unverified individuals would violate basic safeguarding standards.

The correct response when someone shows up unannounced asking questions about children, operations, or funding is to decline and refer them to proper regulatory or legal channels.

Follow-up reporting found that most of the centers featured in the video had active licenses, and in some cases, children were present the same day the video suggested the site was “empty.” That does not prove innocence, but it does undermine certainty.

At this point, there has been no public audit or court ruling confirming the scale or certainty of daycare fraud alleged in the video. Yet, it appears that in the current world of ours, proof seems to matter less than perception. Especially when the claims reinforce an existing bias.

---

Why This Moment Feels So Charged

When something spreads this quickly, it’s worth asking why?

The video emerged during a moment of heightened attention to fraud and immigration concerns in Minnesota, and primarily focused on Somali communities. It gained traction amid a broader political focus on government spending and oversight and was created as the state approaches a competitive gubernatorial election.

Stories don’t spread in a vacuum. They move faster when they align with existing fears, frustrations, or political narratives. And when there are incentives for them to do so.

Viral content benefits the person who creates it. Attention translates into views, followers, ad revenue, and influence. In this case, the creator will likely gain both financially and publicly from the reach of the video. That alone doesn’t make the claims false, but it does mean there is something to gain from how the story is framed, and that will inherently change how a story is reported.

Political narratives can benefit as well. Claims that appear to confirm concerns about government oversight or spending quickly become useful talking points, especially during an election cycle.

In this particular case, Minnesota Republican state leader Lisa Demuth has publicly stated that she and members of her caucus directed the YouTuber behind the video to specific daycare locations. And this is where context matters, since Demuth is also running for governor against Tim Walz in the upcoming election, and a viral story like this could help her campaign.

These facts do not prove misconduct, and I am not suggesting this was done solely for political gain. What they do show is that this was not an independent discovery rooted in a neutral effort to uncover fraud. The locations were selected, and the framing, timing, and visuals were constructed in ways that guide the viewer toward a particular conclusion.

For example, a viewer would reasonably assume the visits took place during normal operating hours, otherwise the entire premise of the video would fall apart. Yet when Nick Shirley was asked by a CNN reporter whether he visited during standard operating hours, he responded, “I came at 11… a.m. I believe. And I also came the following day, later in the day. The point of it is not whether or not I came at the right time of their operation hours, the point is, blacked-out doors, they can’t give you any information, you call that number, no one answers.”

But if the claim is that a daycare is operating fraudulently, and without children in attendance the timing of the visit is foundational to his argument. Arriving outside of normal operating days or hours completely undermines the conclusion being drawn.

When the reporter followed up by asking, “Surely you don’t think a daycare should just be unlocked, you shouldn’t be able to just walk into a daycare,” Shirley responded, “There should be reception.” The reporter clarified that licensed daycare facilities are locked for safety reasons, to which Shirley replied, “Fair point.”

Publishing an exposé on the childcare industry without understanding one of its most basic safety protocols should prompt viewers to question what else Shirley may not understand about the system he claims to have uncovered.

This dynamic is not unique to this video. All media, traditional and new, makes choices about what to highlight and how to present it. Those choices shape how a story feels before facts are fully examined. And in a politically charged moment, especially when one community is disproportionately centered, the need for evidence and careful evaluation becomes even more important.

If you are wondering where the media you consume falls on the bias scale, I highly recommend checking out Ad Fontes Media, a tool to help people navigate the complex media landscape and combat political polarization.

---

What Happens When Claims Move Faster Than Facts

Another part of this story is what has not happened.

If the claims are as definitive as presented, and truly aimed at stopping fraud and protecting taxpayer dollars, there should be data to support them. And no… listing the amount of state funding a childcare center received and then adding that total to a “fraud counter” when staff will not grant strangers access to vulnerable children is not evidence of fraud. It is a misuse of public data paired with assumption.

When allegations involve public funds and licensed institutions, transparency strengthens credibility. Providing records, allowing claims to be examined, and grounding accusations in verifiable evidence are the foundations of accountability. When we choose to hear only what confirms our assumptions, rather than doing the work to verify what we’re watching, we create the conditions for weak reporting to go viral.

---

Who Pays the Price

Viral content benefits the person who creates it and political narratives gain strength when reinforced by dramatic visuals and storytelling. That can lead to certainty and judgment spreading quickly when claims are framed as already proven. But the true cost is carried by others.

Childcare providers whose names or locations are shared publicly face reputational harm. Families relying on subsidies may lose care. Staff face instability. And communities, particularly our Somali community, absorb suspicion long before any findings are released. Just yesterday, a Somali-owned daycare center in Minneapolis, one that was not featured in the video, was broken into and extensively vandalized, with important papers stolen. These are the real repercussions of treating allegations as fact before evidence exists.

Another cost that will be carried by providers if child care funding freezes or additional verification requirements roll out across states is operational. In response, many people ask, “Shouldn’t providers just show proof? Why aren’t they already doing that?”

But providers are already required to submit documentation to support enrollment, attendance, and compliance tied to the funding they receive, and all are subject to unannounced licensing visits. The issue is not whether documentation exists or if there are ways to improve the reporting. It’s how new requirements are imposed and who is expected to manage them. Child care programs are not staffed or funded to suddenly absorb new layers of daily documentation, real-time uploads, or expanded verification without additional resources. Every new requirement takes time, labor, technology, and training (none of which are free) and all of which are absorbed by programs already operating on razor-thin margins. When funding is paused or delayed while systems change, providers are still responsible for payroll, rent, utilities, and staffing, even as reimbursement timelines become uncertain.

These consequences occur before investigations conclude, regardless of outcomes. And when unverified claims are shared as fact, everyone spreading them become part of the harm, and the burden falls on providers and families to absorb the fallout, based on suspicion alone.

---

My Hope Looking Forward

So as we move into a new year, my hope is simple.

I hope more of us pause before reacting.
I hope more of us look closely at where information comes from, why it’s being shared, and who benefits from how it’s framed.
And I hope we all get better at being critical thinkers, especially when we feel justified because a story confirms something we already believe.

Because if any of us were on the receiving end of a public, viral accusation, shared widely before facts were established, we would want the same courtesy extended to us.

We would want evidence, due process, and the hope that people would choose to slow down before deciding who we are.

None of this is an argument against accountability.

If fraud exists, it should be uncovered. If public funds are being misused, that should be addressed fully and transparently. If a childcare facility is not operating safely, ethically, or within the law, it should absolutely be shut down.

But those decisions cannot be dictated by public opinion or viral momentum, they need to be determined using facts and evidence.

Childcare is already one of the most regulated, scrutinized, and under-supported industries in this country. It cannot withstand being governed by implication rather than proof. We all can, and should, do better.

---

If you’re a leader in early childhood education reading this and feeling tired, protective, or on edge, you’re not wrong to feel that way. This work is already hard enough without being turned into a headline. This space is for early childhood leaders who want thoughtful conversation and practical resources to support the work. You’re welcome to subscribe below (it’s free).