Which US states have the largest Somali immigrant populations and how do welfare rates compare?
Executive summary
Minnesota is by far the U.S. state with the largest Somali immigrant population; other states with notable Somali communities include Ohio, Washington, Virginia and Georgia, though their Somali populations are much smaller [1] [2]. Reporting on welfare use concentrates on Minnesota, where a Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) analysis reported extremely high rates of means-tested benefit use among Somali households (81% overall and 89% for households with children), but that finding is hotly contested, limited in geographic scope and subject to interpretation and sampling concerns [3] [1].
1. Minnesota: ground zero for Somali population and welfare data
Minnesota hosts the single largest Somali community in the United States, with multiple sources placing Somalis in the six-figure range in the state — FactCheck cites Census Bureau ACS estimates of more than 108,000 people of Somali descent in Minnesota as of 2024, and historical local archives and compendia document Minnesota as the long-standing epicenter of Somali settlement [1] [4]. Because Minnesota concentrates both the population and detailed state data, most analyses of Somali welfare participation focus there: the CIS reported that roughly 81% of Somali immigrant households in Minnesota consumed some form of welfare (food stamps, Medicaid or cash assistance), and 89% for Somali households with children, while also noting high Medicaid and SNAP participation specifically [3].
2. Other states with visible Somali communities, but limited welfare breakdowns
Outside Minnesota, state-by-state figures vary and are substantially smaller: a 2026 state-ranking compendium lists Ohio as the second-largest for Somali residents (about 21,051), and identifies Washington, Virginia and Georgia among other states with measurable Somali populations — but these totals are an order of magnitude lower than Minnesota’s and reporting rarely disaggregates welfare participation by national origin in smaller states [2]. Available reporting flags Maine and pockets elsewhere as places where fraud allegations have been raised, but those claims come from selective investigations and nonprofit whistleblowers rather than comprehensive state-level studies [5].
3. What the welfare numbers actually say — and what they don’t
The headline CIS figures (81%/89%) are framed as household consumption of any means-tested aid; CIS further reported that more than half of Somali households received SNAP and nearly three-quarters used Medicaid — conclusions drawn from ACS-period data and administrative program measures [3]. FactCheck.org incorporated the CIS release into its coverage but also cautioned about definitional limits of “welfare,” sampling error in survey-based percentages, and difficulty extrapolating state findings to national claims — noting reasonable statistical uncertainty around some estimates [1]. Independent outlets and op-eds echo the high-use story while diverging sharply over causes and remedies [6] [7].
4. Interpretation, competing explanations and reported agendas
Analysts who stress structural causes point out that high program use mirrors extreme poverty and refugee arrival profiles — many Somalis arrived with low assets, interrupted education and trauma, which make eligibility for means-tested programs both likely and lawful [3] [6]. Critics and some conservative commentators frame the same data as evidence of systemic abuse or fraud and urge tighter immigration and benefit oversight; those critics often cite investigative reporting on billing fraud in Minnesota and argue policy failure by local officials [7] [5]. It is important to note the ideological slant of sources: CIS advocates lower immigration levels, AEI and like-minded outlets emphasize governance failures, and fact-checkers and local demographic resources urge caution about generalizing from Minnesota to the whole country [3] [7] [1] [8].
5. Limits of available evidence and what remains unsettled
Nationally representative, origin-specific welfare rates for Somalis are scarce; most authoritative, cited figures come from state-focused studies centered on Minnesota, so extrapolating an “America-wide” Somali welfare rate is unsupported by the provided reporting [6] [1]. Likewise, while program participation numbers are large in Minnesota, the degree to which participation reflects lawful need versus fraudulent abuse remains disputed across investigative reports, academic commentaries and partisan op-eds; the evidence supplied here documents the high participation and controversies but does not definitively adjudicate causation or the prevalence of fraud [3] [5] [7].