Which agencies (state attorney general, U.S. DOJ, special prosecutors) would investigate a sitting Minnesota governor?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Multiple layers of authority can investigate a sitting Minnesota governor: state law-enforcement and oversight bodies led by the Minnesota Attorney General and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, federal agencies including the U.S. Department of Justice and Treasury/FinCEN, and Congress through oversight committees — all of which are already active in the current Minnesota fraud controversies (for example, federal prosecutors have charged defendants in Housing Stabilization Services cases and the House Oversight Committee has opened an inquiry) [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Who at the state level can investigate a governor — and how they operate
Minnesota’s chief state-level criminal and civil investigative power rests with the Attorney General’s Office and state law-enforcement agencies such as the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA); the governor can direct executive action, but the Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit and joint state-federal task forces have already taken part in major fraud probes in 2025 [2] [5]. The state has also created and funded centralized fraud units — for example, the governor signed an executive order creating a centralized fraud investigations unit at the BCA and announced a statewide program-integrity director — which are designed to investigate programmatic fraud across agencies [5] [6] [7].
2. Which federal agencies can and have opened inquiries
If alleged misconduct implicates federal law or federal funds, U.S. attorneys and federal agencies step in. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota and federal prosecutors have led indictments tied to program fraud (notably HSS and Feeding Our Future cases), and federal partners listed in state press materials include the FBI and HHS–OIG [2] [1]. The U.S. Treasury announced probes of businesses tied to the Minnesota scandal and FinCEN actions have been flagged as part of tracking suspected money flows; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Reuters reporting confirm Treasury involvement [4] [8].
3. Congress and oversight committees: political but investigatory power
Congressional committees can investigate through document requests, hearings and political pressure; the House Oversight Committee under Chairman James Comer has opened an inquiry into the statewide fraud and has sent formal letters to Governor Walz and Attorney General Ellison requesting documents by a specific deadline, showing how congressional oversight operates alongside criminal probes [3] [1]. Those inquiries are political by nature and can pressure state and federal authorities but do not themselves bring criminal charges [3].
4. Special prosecutors, independent counsel and inspector-general options
Available sources show state proposals and debate over new oversight offices — including calls from some Minnesota Republicans for a statewide Office of Inspector General with independent investigative authority — and practical use of outside contractors for forensic work [9] [6] [10]. The sources do not record the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the governor personally; instead, existing models in the coverage show joint state–federal task forces and expansions of state fraud units have been the main investigatory routes [2] [5]. Available sources do not mention a federal special counsel appointment in this matter.
5. How cases move from administrative review to criminal prosecution
The reporting shows a layered path: agency audits and program-integrity reviews can lead to search warrants and criminal charges when evidence indicates fraud — for instance, state and federal investigators executed search warrants and federal prosecutors have charged dozens in connected schemes — demonstrating that administrative findings frequently become criminal investigations when money and federal program rules are implicated [2] [1] [11].
6. Political context and competing narratives that shape investigations
Coverage makes clear the probes occur amid intense partisan conflict: Republicans have characterized the scandal as systemic failure “on Gov. Walz’s watch” and pushed for federal and state probes, while Democrats and the governor stress state actions to create fraud units and audits and warn against demonizing communities [12] [5] [13] [14]. Media outlets and elected officials differ on emphasis: some national Republican figures and state GOP leaders have called for criminal and even “terrorist” money-flow investigations, while state officials underline joint state–federal cooperation and reforms [15] [4] [5].
7. What the reporting does not say or confirm
Current reporting documents multiple active investigations and oversight probes, but available sources do not state that any of these bodies have opened a formal criminal investigation specifically naming Governor Walz as a target or that a special counsel has been appointed to investigate the governor himself; federal and state actions cited instead focus on program fraud, providers, and systemic oversight failures [1] [2] [4]. Sources also do not provide judicial findings that the governor committed criminal wrongdoing — they show political and administrative scrutiny and ongoing investigations [1] [13].
Bottom line: Several independent avenues exist to investigate a sitting Minnesota governor — state law enforcement (Attorney General, BCA), federal prosecutors and agencies (U.S. Attorney’s Office, DOJ components, Treasury/FinCEN), congressional oversight committees, and potential independent or inspector-general mechanisms — and the current coverage shows many of those avenues already engaged in probes tied to Minnesota’s fraud scandals, even as partisan disagreement shapes much of the public narrative [2] [4] [3] [5].