Gov. Tim Walz Under Fire for $430K in Legal Fees Ahead of Immigration Policy Hearing

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is facing mounting criticism from Republican lawmakers after it was revealed that his administration spent $430,000 in taxpayer money on legal services to prepare for a congressional hearing on sanctuary city policies.

Invoices obtained by the Star Tribune show that Walz’s office retained the global law firm K&L Gates to provide legal and strategic support ahead of his June testimony before the Republican-led House Oversight Committee. The hearing focused on immigration enforcement policies in Democratic-led states, including those related to sanctuary city designations.

Between April 10 and June 12, the state was billed more than $430,000 by K&L Gates, with roughly $232,000 incurred in May alone. The average hourly rate, according to the documents, was approximately $516.

Republican lawmakers in Minnesota reacted swiftly to the revelations, accusing the governor of wasting public funds for what they argue was unnecessary political image management.

“A half a million dollars of taxpayer money to prepare the governor to go to his old stomping grounds seems exorbitant,” said State Rep. Jim Nash, a Republican member of the Legislative Advisory Commission. “Especially considering the state attorney general — a fellow former member of Congress — could have assisted him without the cost.”

Nash said he plans to conduct a thorough review of the billing records and question the necessity of hiring outside legal counsel when state attorneys and communications staff were available.

Similarly, Republican State Rep. Harry Niska criticized the governor for what he described as politically motivated spending disguised as legal preparation.

“Governor Walz spent over a decade in Congress. He knows the hearing process, the setting, and how to conduct himself,” Niska said. “This looks less like legal support and more like high-priced public relations consulting — all paid for by Minnesota taxpayers.”

Niska further accused Walz of using public money to lay the foundation for potential national political ambitions.

“To be clear, this appears to have no legitimate legal justification,” Niska said. “It’s unconscionable to make working Minnesotans foot the bill for what looks like an effort to build his national profile.”

In response to the criticism, Walz and his office have largely deflected questions about the expenses, instead turning the blame on congressional Republicans, whom they accused of staging a partisan event designed to embarrass Democratic governors.

Teddy Tschann, a spokesperson for Walz, called the hearing a “political stunt” orchestrated by House Republicans at the taxpayers’ expense.

“They were more interested in playing to the cameras than in having a serious conversation about immigration policy,” Tschann said. “What’s most frustrating is that Reps. Tom Emmer and Pete Stauber knew what the cost of this would be, yet went ahead with the hearing anyway.”

When pressed directly about the legal costs, Walz defended his decision while expressing frustration with the process.

“This hearing wasn’t something I wanted to be part of, and it certainly wasn’t where I wanted to spend taxpayer money,” Walz told reporters. “It proved to be exactly what we expected — a platform for political grandstanding, not serious policy discussion.”

The controversy surrounding the legal bill comes amid broader political scrutiny over the use of public funds for legal and public relations consulting in response to congressional inquiries.

Earlier this year, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu revealed that the city anticipated paying around $650,000 to a private law firm for support in preparing for a federal hearing. Likewise, the City of Denver reportedly spent approximately $250,000 on legal services to prepare Mayor Mike Johnston for his own testimony before Congress, according to Fox News.

Despite the precedent, Republican critics argue that Walz’s spending stands out, especially given his prior experience in Congress and his close working relationship with current Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who also served in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“It’s hard to see how these costs are justified,” said Rep. Nash. “If this was truly about legal defense, why not use our own state’s legal resources? It looks like the governor wanted high-end consultants to manage his image, and that’s not what taxpayer dollars are for.”

The issue is likely to remain a flashpoint in Minnesota politics, especially as Walz continues to position himself as a national voice on immigration, healthcare, and education issues.

For now, GOP lawmakers say they will continue pressing for transparency.

“This isn’t going away,” said Nash. “We’re going to get to the bottom of what this money was really for.