Ellison’s Somalia Money Bill Sparks Questions
Keith Ellison served in the U.S. House for Minnesota’s 5th District before becoming the state’s attorney general. During his time in Congress he sponsored a measure called the Money Remittances Improvement Act of 2014. That law changed how some money transfers to foreign countries are regulated.
The law aimed to modernize rules for remittances. Supporters said it made life easier for people sending small amounts home. It pushed certain supervisory duties from federal agencies to the states, and it sought to streamline compliance for money transmitters.
But the change also drew critics. Some argue shifting oversight created gaps that could be exploited. Reporting and commentary have tied those gaps to large sums leaving the U.S. and heading to Somalia. Those reports say illicit transfers and fraud took advantage of looser controls. Others say remittances are a vital lifeline for migrants and refugees, and that the law reduced unnecessary burdens on legitimate transfers.
There’s also video and interviews that people have pointed to. In one clip from years ago, Ellison is quoted saying, “there is no control at all” when he discussed what might happen if banks stopped dealing with hawalas—informal money-transfer networks used by many diasporas. At the end of another recorded remark, he says, “The discussion focused on how we can keep money flowing to Somalia.” Those two lines have been circulated widely on social media and have driven much of the current criticism.
In 2011, then-Congressman Keith Ellison—now Minnesota’s Attorney General admitted that “there is no control at all” when discussing what would happen once the banks stopped working with the hawalas.
That hypothetical situation he described more than a decade ago with suitcases… pic.twitter.com/i4W6pUT9Xf
— easttowestt 🌍 🇮🇱🇹🇼 (@westtoeastt) January 20, 2026
Keith Ellison served as a congressman for more than a decade and the only bill he sponsored and was signed into law was Money Remittances Improvement Act of 2014.
His only concern was about getting money to Somalia pic.twitter.com/fadZAKHUa7
— easttowestt 🌍 🇮🇱🇹🇼 (@westtoeastt) January 20, 2026
Context matters. Remittances serve families and communities. Hawalas and similar networks have long been used where formal banking is weak. At the same time, regulators worry about fraud, money laundering, and diversion of funds to armed groups in conflict zones. The policy debate is about balancing access and safety.
So what should readers take away? The law Ellison sponsored is a real piece of policy that changed the rules. Critics say it created problems and point to remarks he made. Supporters say it reduced red tape and helped legitimate senders. Both sides raise valid points. If concerns about fraud or security are real, they call for stronger oversight and clearer enforcement rather than simply assuming intent.
Either way, this issue mixes policy, money, and community ties. It deserves clear answers and, if needed, fixes to the rules so remittances can flow safely and lawfully.