Rep. Brandon Gill, a Texas Republican, introduced legislation on the House floor to impose a moratorium on immigration from Somalia, arguing that current policies fail to prioritize American interests and have led to negative outcomes in communities with large Somali populations.
“The reality is that Somalian immigration makes Americans less prosperous, less safe, and less culturally cohesive,” Gill stated.
I introduced legislation to impose a 25-year immigration moratorium on Somalia.
— Congressman Brandon Gill (@RepBrandonGill) February 5, 2026
We’ve seen the Somali fraud. Americans come first. pic.twitter.com/VEphumRynX
In his remarks, Gill emphasized the fundamental purpose of the nation’s immigration system. “A core part of American sovereignty is the ability to determine who is able to enter our country,” he said. “And the sole purpose of our immigration system is to benefit American citizens.”
Gill tied his proposal to recent events, including what he described as a multibillion-dollar Somalia fraud scandal that has drawn public attention and anger in the past weeks. He introduced a bill that would halt Somali immigration, framing it as a necessary step to address broader concerns.
He pointed to statistics focused on Somali immigrants in Minnesota, a state with one of the largest Somali communities in the country. Gill noted that 78 percent of Somali immigrants there receive welfare benefits, even after residing in the United States for ten years or longer. He also cited higher crime rates among Somali men compared to native-born Americans and reported that only about half of Somali immigrants speak English very well after more than a decade in the country.
Gill further contended that Somalia’s clan-based society presents barriers to assimilation into American culture. “The reality is that Somalia’s clan-based society is unassimilable into American society,” he said. “It’s time to put the American people first, and I urge the House to support my bill.”
The legislation, introduced amid ongoing national discussions about immigration enforcement, welfare usage, and cultural integration, seeks to pause entries from Somalia for an extended period—reports indicate a proposed 25-year moratorium. Gill has linked his position to wider advocacy efforts, including his involvement in the Sharia Free America Caucus, where he has warned about the perceived threats posed by radical Islam as a political ideology incompatible with American constitutional principles such as free speech, religious liberty, and the separation of church and state.
Islam didn’t come to the United States on the Mayflower. We imported it relatively recently via a suicidal immigration system.
— Congressman Brandon Gill (@RepBrandonGill) February 3, 2026
Importing radical Islam will destroy America just like it’s destroying Europe right now. pic.twitter.com/6r5Vit4Hon
Gill has described radical Islam as expansionist and argued that it conflicts with foundational American values. He has contrasted Islam’s limited historical presence in the nation’s founding with the European influences that shaped early settlement, asserting that its growth in the United States stems from deliberate immigration choices rather than organic roots. He has claimed that continuing such policies risks replicating challenges seen in parts of Europe.
His stance aligns with a broader hardline approach to immigration, including strong support for deportations and opposition to policies he views as lax on border security and asylum. Gill has framed these issues not only as matters of public safety and economic cost but also as questions of cultural and civilizational compatibility, arguing that certain ideologies and cultural systems do not align with the U.S. governing framework.
The bill’s introduction comes at a time when immigration remains a central debate in Congress and across the country, with discussions focusing on national security, resource allocation, and the balance between humanitarian policies and domestic priorities. Supporters of Gill’s measure see it as a defense of American sovereignty and taxpayer resources, while opponents contend that such targeted restrictions risk broader implications for religious communities and social cohesion. The proposal now awaits consideration in the House.
