A 23-year-old activist from Minnesota has recently become the center of a heated debate online after releasing a video that quickly went viral.
Nick Shirley, a rising internet personality, claimed that several Somali-run daycare centers were misusing taxpayer money.
His allegations suggested that these centers mishandled more than $100 million and weren’t properly caring for children during normal business hours.
Shirley’s video caught the attention of social media users worldwide, racking up hundreds of millions of views.
Even billionaire Elon Musk shared the clip on X, amplifying its reach.
Conservative commentator JD Vance praised Shirley’s work, arguing he deserved a Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism.
Official Investigations Contradict Claims
Despite Shirley’s explosive claims, state and federal authorities have not found evidence to back them up.
Inspections of the daycares highlighted in his videos showed that many were licensed, open, and operating as expected.
Officials emphasized that while fraud exists in Minnesota’s social service programs, the specific allegations Shirley made have not led to any arrests.
Even so, Shirley’s video indirectly sparked federal action.
The Department of Homeland Security reportedly launched efforts in the Twin Cities to target illegal immigration, and the FBI said it deployed additional personnel to investigate potential large-scale fraud.
A Viral Interview Backfires
Shirley’s sudden fame took an unexpected turn when he appeared in a video interview with YouTuber Andrew Callaghan.
During the conversation, Shirley struggled to understand the meaning of the word “benevolent.”
When asked to name the “three most benevolent billionaires,” he asked for clarification and mispronounced the term before eventually listing Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and David Sacks.
The clip quickly circulated online, prompting criticism and mockery.
Some viewers described Shirley as “stupid” or “illiterate,” with social media users questioning his qualifications for serious journalism.
One comment on X read, “You can’t argue with people who are this stupid. This guy needs a chaperone, not a Pulitzer.”
Public Reactions Split
Reactions to Shirley’s videos have been polarized.
While some conservatives continue to praise his efforts to expose alleged fraud, critics highlight his apparent lack of basic literacy skills.
Left-leaning social media accounts were quick to mock his struggle to grasp the meaning of “benevolent,” calling into question his credibility as a journalist.
Meanwhile, discussions continue about the impact of viral activism in the digital age.
Shirley’s video may not have led to legal action against the daycare centers he criticized, but it did spark a broader conversation about oversight, accountability, and the power of social media to amplify individual voices.
Ongoing Questions
As of now, no arrests have been made in relation to Shirley’s claims.
Authorities maintain that investigations into fraud in Minnesota’s social services programs are ongoing but separate from the viral video.
Shirley’s rise—and sudden fall into viral controversy—raises questions about what qualifies as meaningful journalism today and how online fame can collide with public scrutiny.
While he remains a polarizing figure, his story illustrates the unpredictable consequences of going viral in the digital age.
Share on Facebook «||» Share on Twitter «||» Share on Reddit «||» Share on LinkedIn