Governor Tim Walz is under fire for spending $430,000 in taxpayer funds on legal preparation for a congressional hearing.

Hefty Legal Bill for House Oversight Hearing Draws Fire

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is facing renewed scrutiny after it was revealed his administration spent $430,000 in taxpayer funds to hire outside legal counsel in advance of a congressional hearing. The high-stakes session, held by the GOP-controlled House Oversight Committee in June, focused on “sanctuary city” policies implemented by Walz and other Democratic governors.

Invoices obtained by the Star Tribune detailed that Walz’s office engaged the global law firm K&L Gates from April through the June 12 hearing, incurring legal fees at an average rate of over $500 per hour. Notably, the firm’s work cost the state $232,000 in May alone, sparking criticism from Republican lawmakers who questioned why the governor bypassed the state’s own attorneys and public relations staff.

Rep. Jim Nash, one of two Republicans on Minnesota’s Legislative Advisory Commission, challenged the necessity of hiring outside counsel for what he described as a familiar political environment. “A half a million dollars of taxpayer money to prepare the governor to go to his old stomping grounds seems exorbitant,” Nash said, referencing Walz’s 12 years in Congress. “Certainly, the attorney general for the state of Minnesota was in Congress with Walz at the same time, and the two of them could have figured out how to do what they needed.”

Republican Lawmakers Question Use of Public Funds

State Rep. Harry Niska echoed those concerns, suggesting the spending amounted to little more than public relations consulting for Walz’s political ambitions. “There appears to be no legitimate legal interest of the state in racking up nearly half a million dollars in what amounts to PR consulting as he tries to lay the groundwork for a presidential campaign that’s going absolutely nowhere,” Niska said. He called the expenditure “unconscionable” and said it unfairly burdened Minnesota taxpayers.

In response, Walz and his staff deflected blame, accusing Republicans of staging a political spectacle that forced the state to incur the high legal costs. Spokesperson Teddy Tschann described the hearing as a “planned political stunt on the taxpayer dime,” asserting that GOP lawmakers were more interested in “performing for the cameras” than in hearing about Minnesota’s approach to immigration. Walz himself told reporters the hearing was “not where I wanted to spend money, not where I wanted to spend my time,” insisting the expenses were the result of grandstanding rather than necessity.

The controversy comes amid a national trend of city and state officials relying on costly legal preparation for congressional appearances. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu has faced similar scrutiny after expecting to pay $650,000 for legal assistance related to a hearing in Washington, D.C. Earlier this year, the City of Denver paid $250,000 for outside legal counsel ahead of its mayor’s congressional testimony.

As debate continues over the use of public funds for legal services, Nash and other state lawmakers have pledged to scrutinize the invoices further. The episode highlights ongoing tensions between state leaders and congressional oversight—and the growing price tag for high-profile political hearings.