A newly proposed Senate bill from Ohio’s Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno aims to tighten restrictions on individuals receiving public assistance regarding money transfers abroad. Dubbed the “Stopping Transfers of Public Funds Abroad Act,” the legislation seeks to ensure that taxpayer-funded benefits are used domestically, rather than being sent overseas. Moreno’s bill requires all applicants and recipients of federal assistance to sign a declaration promising they will not engage in remittance transfers while receiving these benefits. There’s a significant penalty for violators: a civil fine of up to $100,000.
This legislation reflects ongoing concerns about the potential misuse of public assistance benefits. Moreno highlighted the problem, stating, “For decades, Washington’s failed welfare program rewarded dependency while enabling fraudsters and criminals to exploit the system to take advantage of American taxpayers.” He emphasizes that anyone with sufficient funds to send money abroad should not rely on welfare benefits, asserting, “The abuse ends now.”
Remittance transfers—money sent by individuals, often immigrants in the U.S., to recipients in other countries—are under a microscope, especially in light of recent scandals like the one involving public assistance fraud in Minnesota’s Somali community. The scrutiny is not unwarranted. Critics point out that it is challenging to track whether these remittances are funded by taxpayer dollars, as public funds and personal income often intermingle in the same accounts. This situation raises serious questions about oversight and accountability in the distribution of public assistance.
Ammon Blair, a senior fellow with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, contributed to this dialogue. He asserts that no individual remittance is inherently harmful, noting that many immigrants wish to support their families. However, he also argues that large-scale remittance flows can exert pressure on host nations, as they become significant economic factors. Blair writes, “When mass migration and financial flows reach industrial scale and persist over time, they can impose real strategic pressures on host nations, regardless of motivation.” This perspective adds depth to the ongoing discussion about the implications of remittance transfers on both domestic and international fronts.
Blair further points out that the United States is the world’s leading source of remittances, with annual outflows estimated at $80 billion to $90 billion. Countries dependent on these funds, like Somalia, may find their economic structures fundamentally altered. In Somalia, remittances represented about 25% of the GDP as of 2024. As Blair notes, “At this scale, remittances are no longer incidental household transfers; they become macroeconomic pillars.” Such reliance on remittances can discourage governments from addressing the emigration of their citizens, as a mass return could harm their economies by disrupting vital revenue streams.
The proposed legislation is not just a matter of fiscal responsibility; it speaks to broader themes of accountability and integrity within the welfare system. By demanding that public assistance recipients commit to not sending funds abroad, this bill seeks to reinforce the principle that taxpayer-funded benefits should directly benefit the citizens of the United States.
In summary, while Sen. Moreno’s bill tackles a pressing issue that intertwines economic and ethical dimensions, it also opens a larger conversation regarding the consequences of remittance flows and the responsibilities of those receiving public assistance. By ensuring that taxpayer money supports American families first, this legislation may help restore some trust in the welfare system, which has faced criticism for enabling dependency rather than self-sufficiency.
"*" indicates required fields
