Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said his administration should have acted sooner to address fraud in state programs, while arguing that he did not have authority to stop payments to suspected fraudsters without legislative action. He made the remarks in a Friday episode of “The Lever” podcast, according to the supplied report.
Walz said that any amount of fraud was unacceptable, but compared the amount prosecuted and resulting in prison sentences with the cost of a proposed ballroom associated with President Donald Trump. The source material does not provide figures for either amount.
Asked whether fraud allegations could continue to damage him politically, Walz said they undermine public confidence in government. He also said he had decided, sometime after the murder of former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and before Christmas, not to run for re-election. Walz said he believed the allegations would be used to attack political opponents and government institutions.
Walz maintained that his administration could not independently stop payments and needed the Legislature to grant that authority. At the same time, he acknowledged that officials could have closed vulnerabilities sooner. He said fraud occurs in other states as well and accused the Trump administration of highlighting Minnesota as a political target. He also objected to what he described as efforts to blame Somali residents, his political opponent and the state more broadly.
Walz argued that fraud and corruption erode confidence in government and can be used to justify cuts to public programs. He cited programs that feed children and services for children with autism, saying Republicans could point to fraud as a reason to shut such programs down. These were Walz’s stated views in the interview.
The report also included criticism from two conservative legal figures. Julian Epstein, identified as a former chief counsel for House Judiciary Democrats, rejected Walz’s explanation. Epstein said a governor has authority to stop payments when there is evidence of fraud and to refer evidence to state and federal prosecutors. He alleged that fraud had been ongoing for more than a decade and said there were questions about whether senior officials had ignored it for political reasons or benefited from it. The supplied material does not establish those allegations.
Theo Wold, identified as a former acting assistant attorney general, also criticized Walz and other Democrats. Wold alleged that public funds had been stolen while Democrats were in charge and accused them of shifting blame to Republicans. His remarks, like Epstein’s, were presented as responses to the interview and were not accompanied in the supplied material by supporting records or independent findings.
The source text offers competing explanations of the state’s response: Walz said he lacked unilateral authority but accepted responsibility for acting too late, while his critics argued that he had sufficient powers and that officials failed to respond. It does not provide a detailed account of particular prosecutions, the total amount of fraud, relevant legislative actions, or documentation to resolve those competing claims.
