Exclusive | Minnesota's 'Quality Learing Center' raked in $215K federal payout -- senator demands receipts 47%

By Ryan King76%

5/21/2026, 11:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Biased Writer Voice, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 49.7% saturation with 303 hits. Analysis detected 1,888 faulty-reasoning hits from 610 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48.7% and a BS Rank of 47% (11,646 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 53.20% of the article peer group.

WASHINGTON  Fraudsters behind the notorious “Quality Learing Center” day care facility in Minnesota raked in nearly a quarter of a million dollars worth of pandemic-era loans from the Small Business Administration, according to a senator’s investigation. 
That day care center, which had a misspelled name and a near-empty parking lot when YouTuber Nick Shirley stopped by for his viral video last year, became the poster child of the fraud scandal that rocked Minnesota. 
The facility, which shuttered in January, had garnered some $1.9 million from Minnesota’s Child Care Assistance Program last year and some $10 million in state funding since 2019. 
But a probe by Sen. 
Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) found that it had also received federal assistance from the Small Business Administration back in April and May 2020 during the first Trump administration. 
That money was designed to pay salaries, rent, and other expenses during the COVID-19 shutdown at the Quality Learning Center. 
Ernst is trying to figure out how the SBA assistance money was used. 
While there are records of the loan going out and then being forgiven, there are no “receipts” for where the money went, a source familiar with the matter explained to The Post. 
If the watchdog determines the money was spent improperly, the feds could pursue punitive measures, such as criminal investigations. 
“The crooks behind the ‘Learing Center’ didn’t stop there,” Ernst wrote in a letter to the SBA’s Office of the Inspector General. 
“They also took advantage of hardworking Americans through COVID-era U.S. 
Small Business Administration (SBA) programs and raked in nearly a quarter of a million dollars.” 
The incident is one of 28 cases the Senate DOGE boss is pushing the SBA’s official watchdog to probe, alongside other fraud concerns in Medicaid and Ohio, inspired by DailyWire reporting on the Buckeye State. 
In its listings with the SBA, the name, Quality Learning Center, was spelled correctly. 
Records show it got a $231,472 total award from the agency, including $215,645 in face value worth of loans between April and May 2020. 
Those loans were marked on file as getting forgiven. 
“Americans expect their tax dollars to be spent responsibly  not to bankroll criminal enterprises,” Ernst told The Post. 
“I have a message to anyone even thinking of ripping off taxpayers: You engage in government grift and graft, then you’re getting cuffed and stuffed, with scammers going to the slammer.” 
Last year, in response to Shirley’s viral video, SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler announced that her agency was pumping the brakes on $5.5 million worth of annual funding to the state of Minnesota amid a review. 
She said the agency found 13,600 different COVID-19-era Paycheck Protection Program loans  $430 million worth  to the state that were subject to fraud concerns. 
This included $3 million that was implicated in the Feeding Our Future fraud scandal that roiled the state. 
Prior to Shirley’s viral visit to Minnesota, the feds had slapped charges against dozens of individuals, which have now led to some 65 convictions, according to the Justice Department. 
The Post contacted the SBA and SBA OIG for comment. 
Fraud in Minnesota led to a national reckoning over how taxpayers’ dollars are getting swindled in the country’s web of social welfare programs, including phony hospices in Los Angeles, and more. 
President Trump has tapped Vice President JD Vance to helm the White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, which aims to combat that malfeasance. 
Last week, Vance issued an ultimatum to all 50 states, demanding that they step up against fraud in their Medicaid program or face funding cuts. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.8%Ryan King: 4.9%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias13.8%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 1.5%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 21.1%Ryan King: 3.0%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic21.1%This article: 6.1%Ryan King: 1.4%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic6.1%This article: 4.8%Ryan King: 0.5%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 7.6%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Ryan King: 8.0%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect6.4%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 1.0%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 0.1%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.9%Ryan King: 3.4%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias3.9%This article: 2.1%Ryan King: 2.3%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias2.1%This article: 49.7%Ryan King: 14.7%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias49.7%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 2.6%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 2.7%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 1.1%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 1.9%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 1.1%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 0.2%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.7%Ryan King: 1.8%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias5.7%This article: 5.7%Ryan King: 0.7%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect5.7%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Ryan King: 3.3%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem3.6%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 0.0%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 19.2%Ryan King: 2.0%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority19.2%This article: 4.1%Ryan King: 3.3%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma4.1%This article: 3.1%Ryan King: 0.8%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope3.1%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.4%Ryan King: 4.7%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization15.4%This article: 5.7%Ryan King: 0.2%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring5.7%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 0.1%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 14.8%Ryan King: 14.6%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion14.8%This article: 3.1%Ryan King: 1.6%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question3.1%This article: 21.3%Ryan King: 2.9%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)21.3%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 0.6%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.7%Ryan King: 0.7%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof7.7%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 17.2%Ryan King: 1.8%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal17.2%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 16.4%Ryan King: 2.7%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)16.4%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 0.4%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 2.4%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 18.4%Ryan King: 4.3%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection18.4%This article: 21.3%Ryan King: 7.8%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice21.3%This article: 9.2%Ryan King: 1.6%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination9.2%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 1.6%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%Ryan King: 1.6%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias9.7%This article: 0.0%Ryan King: 0.3%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

610 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers37%attributed speech387writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageJoni Ernst • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJoni Ernst • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJoni Ernst • 22 words • 100.0% coverageJoni Ernst • 10 words • 100.0% coverageJoni Ernst • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJoni Ernst • 19 words • 100.0% coverageJoni Ernst • 31 words • 100.0% coverageKelly Loeffler • 35 words • 0.0% coverageKelly Loeffler • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageJD Vance • 25 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

JD Vance

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words11% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%JD Vance: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-31.0 ptsWriter: 31.0%JD Vance: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -15.2 ptsWriter: 15.2%JD Vance: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.9 ptsWriter: 3.9%JD Vance: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.