In response to the backlash, Governor Walz and his staff avoided giving a direct explanation for the high legal bill, instead arguing that the congressional hearing was designed as a political spectacle.
Walz spokesperson Teddy Tschann described the hearing as a “planned stunt on the taxpayer dime,” accusing Republicans of using the proceedings to grandstand rather than focus on Minnesota’s immigration policies. He claimed representatives Tom Emmer and Pete Stauber had orchestrated the hearing knowing it would carry heavy costs.
Asked about the $430,000 expense, Walz said it was not how he wanted to spend state resources or his time, insisting the hearing had little substance beyond political showmanship.
While the spending has generated criticism, similar situations have occurred elsewhere. Earlier this year, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu said her administration expected to spend about $650,000 preparing for a hearing in Washington, D.C. Likewise, the City of Denver paid $250,000 for outside legal counsel to prepare Mayor Mike Johnston for a congressional appearance.
Despite those examples, critics in Minnesota argue Walz’s decision underscores misplaced priorities. The debate over the $430,000 bill continues to fuel political tension, raising broader questions about how taxpayer money should be managed when state leaders face high-profile scrutiny.
