$2.2 million traded. Massive political pressure. Federal investigations. Funding frozen.

And still: no charges.

The prediction market is asking: "Will anyone be charged over Daycare fraud in Minnesota by...?"

Right now, odds are sitting at 38% for charges by June 30th and 49% by December 31st. Both are down massively from where they started. The January 31st deadline already resolved to NO.

So what's going on? Why is a scandal that dominated headlines, triggered White House fact sheets, and sparked Congressional hearings still sitting at zero indictments?

One of the outcome being there’s a chance the call won’t happen at all.

In late 2025, YouTuber Nick Shirley released a video exposing alleged "fake" Somali-run daycare centers in Minnesota.

The claim was these facilities were billing the state for childcare services for kids who don't exist.

The video went viral. Conservative media amplified it.

Trump's DOJ announced they were "surging prosecution resources to Minnesota, doubling the number of attorneys handling these matters."

The White House even released a fact sheet saying that many of the facilities in Shirley's video were under active DOJ investigation, and that one building featured in the video had already seen 13 defendants charged for fraud.

But you mean to tell me there hasn’t been anyone charged?

Correct.

Traders are getting burned because there’s been massive fraud prosecutions in Minnesota involving Somali-linked welfare fraud.

Seventy-eight defendants have been charged in the Feeding Our Future scandal, a $250 million child-nutrition fraud scheme.

Across all Minnesota welfare-related fraud investigations, 98 people have been charged, with 85 of them of Somali descent. Sixty-four have already been convicted.

But none of those charges are tied to the "fake daycare" facilities from the viral video.

Only criminal charges tied to the daycare centers alleged to be "fake" in the current scandal count.

And so far? Nothing qualifies.

The specific Somali-run daycare centers featured in Nick Shirley's video have been inspected multiple times in recent months.

Children were present. Headcounts matched what the centers were billing. There were licensing violations—safety issues, training gaps, paperwork problems—but no fraud findings.

State officials explicitly said there are ongoing investigations into some of those centers, but none of those investigations has yet uncovered fraud that they can prove.

The bar for criminal charges is high.

To indict someone for daycare fraud, prosecutors need attendance records showing kids weren't there, surveillance footage, staff statements, parent statements, and bank records proving intentional deception.

The problem is Minnesota's Child Care Assistance Program “oversight” is pretty spotty to begin with.

To say the least.

Politically, this is a massive story. But is that it?

Sure the Trump administration froze childcare funding pending verification.

HHS ordered states to justify childcare spending.

Congressional hearings grilled Minnesota officials.

The DOJ announced they're doubling attorneys on the case.

Except all of those actions are administrative, not criminal.

Minnesota has a history of welfare fraud prosecutions, and Congressional hearings are demanding action.

However, inspections so far have found kids present at the facilities, not empty buildings. Believe it or not, no fraud has been substantiated at the viral centers yet.

Minnesota has prosecuted daycare fraud before, but those cases took years to build.

Judging from Polymarket's timeline—38% for charges by June 30th and 49% by December 31st—it could be a while before something happens. If it happens at all.

The market is betting on whether political pressure can force prosecutors to move faster than the evidence allows.

But right now, the evidence isn't there yet. Whether it will be by year-end is anyone's guess.

_{___________________________________________________________________}

_DISCLAIMER:

_{The Content is not intended to provide, and does not constitute, financial, investment, trading, tax, legal, or any other form of professional advice. It is not a recommendation, suggestion, solicitation, or offer to buy, sell, trade, or hold any securities, event contracts, derivatives, cryptocurrencies, or other financial instruments on platforms such as Polymarket, Kalshi, or any other prediction market.}

_{Prediction Market Edge believes the Content is reliable but makes no representations or warranties as to its accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or suitability for any purpose. The Content is subject to change without notice, and Prediction Market Edge assumes no duty or obligation to update it.}

_{Trading in prediction markets involves significant risk of loss, including the potential loss of your entire investment. Past performance (including any highlighted “wins” or gains) is not indicative of future results. Markets are volatile, influenced by news, liquidity, resolution rules, and other factors, and individual results will vary. Subscribers and readers should conduct their own independent research, consider their financial situation, risk tolerance, and objectives, and consult qualified professionals before making any trading or investment decisions.}

_{Prediction Market Edge is not responsible for any third-party information, market data, platform rules, or services referenced herein, including but not limited to Polymarket, Kalshi, or other exchanges. Use of the Content is at your own risk.}

_{By subscribing to or accessing this Newsletter or related materials, you agree that Prediction Market Edge and its affiliates shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or other damages arising from your use of the Content.}

_{For important additional information, please review our full Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and any Subscription Agreement (available on predictionmarketedge.com).}