In a notable exchange during a January 7, 2026, House Oversight Committee hearing, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) confronted witness Brendan Ballou, a former DOJ prosecutor, on the implications of Somali immigration for Minnesota. This hearing focused on the significant fraud in the state’s social programs, allegedly tied to these immigrants.
Rep. Gill did not hesitate to challenge Ballou’s assertion that Somali immigration strengthens the state. The Texas congressman opened the questioning with a straightforward inquiry: “Does large-scale Somali immigration make Minnesota stronger or weaker?” Ballou’s response, asserting it makes the state “certainly stronger,” seemed to lack basis in the reality that Gill was eager to dissect.
Gill continued to press Ballou on the facts surrounding welfare use among Somali households compared to native Minnesotans. When he asked for the percentage of Somali-headed households dependent on food stamps, Gill highlighted the stark contrast—54% for Somali families versus 7% for native Minnesotan households. This marked disparity left little room for debate on the economic implications of large-scale immigration.
The line of questioning became even more pointed as Gill followed up with Medicaid usage data: 73% of Somali-headed households utilized this service compared to 18% for native Minnesotans. Ballou, feeling the heat, objected to Gill’s terminology, claiming the term “native Minnesotan” was being misused. His defensive stance suggested an unwillingness to engage with the hard data highlighted by Gill.
Gill’s relentless questioning illuminated the reality of welfare dependency among Somali immigrants in Minnesota, prompting Ballou to argue that many in the Somali community are “as Minnesota as any of us.” Gill effectively countered this claim by redirecting the conversation back to statistics. Ballou’s position seemed increasingly tenuous as Gill pressed him further, asking about English proficiency among Somali immigrants who had lived in the U.S. for over ten years. When Ballou stumbled, suggesting that perhaps “half” could speak English very well, Gill clarified that the actual number was closer to half, underscoring that this level of English proficiency did not align with the notion of a robust, strengthening immigration policy.
Gill’s concluding remarks connected the dots, emphasizing the implications of these statistics on public perception and policy. He suggested that the issues of welfare dependency and language proficiency do not contribute positively to Minnesota’s strength. “Doesn’t sound like something that makes our country stronger to me,” he asserted, encapsulating a sentiment that resonates with many who question the long-term impact of unchecked immigration on American communities.
This exchange not only highlighted the contentious debate around immigration but also exposed a clash between ideology and empirical evidence. Gill’s rigorous questioning served as a vehicle for conveying broader concerns about social programs and the challenges faced by immigrant communities in assimilating into the American fabric.
"*" indicates required fields
