78 percent of Somali immigrant households remain on welfare even after a decade in the United States—a statistic that ignited a fierce debate on Capitol Hill and reopened the debate over immigration, welfare dependency, and political accountability.
The statistic, cited by Rep. Brandon Gill, during a heated Oversight Committee hearing, has become a flashpoint in a broader reckoning over Minnesota’s sprawling welfare system and recent revelations of large-scale fraud.
The exchange unfolded as Rep. Gill pressed state officials and witnesses on disparities in welfare usage. He contrasted the figures he cited for Somali-headed households with far lower rates among native-born Minnesota households, arguing that the gap raised serious questions about policy outcomes.
When challenged, Democratic witnesses attempted to blur the distinction, insisting that many Somali Minnesotans are American-born and culturally integrated. Gill rejected that framing, returning repeatedly to the numbers and arguing that outcomes—not intentions—are what ought to matter in public policy.
The congressman went further, stating that more than 80 percent of Somali-headed households receive some form of welfare assistance. Even after ten years of residency, he said, nearly four in five remain dependent on government support—a figure he argued is incompatible with claims of successful integration.
These remarks landed amid a cascade of corruption investigations in Minnesota that have shaken public confidence. State and federal authorities have uncovered what they describe as one of the largest fraud scandals in recent US history, involving alleged abuse of childcare subsidies, food assistance programs, and healthcare funding.
Investigators estimate that as much as $9 billion may have been siphoned off through fake nonprofits and shell organizations. According to prosecutors, many of these operations inflated enrollment numbers or fabricated services while collecting taxpayer dollars.
Hellbound and Down 