Sen. Moreno Rebukes Former Biden Advisor After Repeated 'I don’t know anything about this' Responses on Illegal Entry Question

A terse exchange on the Senate Budget Committee floor Tuesday drew attention after Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno repeatedly pressed a witness on whether entering the United States without authorization should be a crime, and the witness declined to answer. The witness, Brendan Duke, is a former senior policy advisor in the Biden administration who now serves as senior director for federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress. Duke replied multiple times, “I don’t know anything about this,” saying he was present to testify about budget matters.

The confrontation began when Moreno asked Duke directly, “Do you think it should be a crime to enter the country illegally?” Rather than take up the question, Duke responded, “I don’t know anything about this. I’m here to talk about budgets with the budget.” Moreno pressed the point, saying the question was simple and not limited to legal technicalities: “You don’t have to… Look, I’m not a lawyer. You don’t have to be a lawyer. It’s a simple question. Should it be a crime? I’ll say it slowly, should it be a crime to enter the United States of America illegally? Without permission.”

Each time Moreno sought a direct answer, Duke repeated the same refrain. When Moreno tried a rhetorical comparison to make the point more concrete for his witness, he asked, “Do you have a home? I run. Do you have a place that you sleep in?” He followed with, “Should it be a crime for people to enter your home without permission?” Moreno then pointed out that he presumed an obvious answer to that question and juxtaposed it with what he characterized as Duke’s unwillingness to answer the comparable question about the nation: “Okay, but you’re not sure if it’s okay to enter America without permission? Which is our home, by the way. You don’t know about America. Okay. Got you.”

The exchange drew an immediate rebuke from Moreno, who addressed the committee chairman and the panel’s ranking member: “All right, so this is the best the Democrats can come up with, Mr. Chairman. I hope the ranking member can listen for just a second, if you don’t mind. This is the best witnesses you’ve got. A guy who can’t distinguish whether it’s okay to have people enter our country illegally.” Footage of the exchange was circulated on social media, including a post by Townhall.com that summarized the senator’s reaction and linked to the video.

Duke’s role at the hearing was framed around federal budget policy, not immigration enforcement. He identified himself as being at the hearing to discuss budgetary considerations, which he cited when declining to address the immigration question. The back-and-forth underscores tensions that often arise in congressional oversight when lawmakers press witnesses on issues that fall outside the narrow expertise they were invited to address.

The exchange also reflects the politicized nature of immigration in congressional hearings: lawmakers frequently use witness appearances as an opportunity to spotlight policy disputes or to question witnesses about matters beyond their stated expertise. Moreno’s public criticism framed Duke’s responses as emblematic of what he described as Democratic failures on immigration policy and witness selection.

No additional testimony from Duke about immigration policy was recorded during the hearing. The transcript and video clip capture the brevity and sharpness of the interaction, leaving the question posed by Moreno unanswered in that forum. The hearing continued with its focus on budgetary issues, and the exchange is likely to be cited in partisan debate over both immigration policy and the conduct of oversight hearings.

The incident adds to a series of contentious exchanges in recent congressional hearings where testimony expectations, witness qualifications and the scope of questioning have become subjects of dispute between lawmakers. While this moment did not change policy, it served as a flashpoint in ongoing partisan disagreement over immigration and the role of witnesses in Capitol Hill oversight proceedings.