Minnesota's Board of Pardons granted a pardon to a 42-year-old Laos national convicted of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl, one week before he was scheduled to be deported. Governor Tim Walz, who sits atop the three-member board, has drawn immediate condemnation from the Department of Homeland Security, which says the decision could block the man's removal from the United States entirely.
Tou Lue Vang pleaded guilty in 2006 to first-degree criminal sexual conduct for repeatedly assaulting a child between 2002 and 2006. He avoided prison through a plea deal and was sentenced to 12 years with the sentence stayed and 30 years of supervised probation, the Washington Examiner reported. Now, thanks to the pardon finalized at the board's June 10 meeting, Vang has what amounts to a clean slate.
The timing alone should trouble anyone who believes convicted sex offenders ought to face consequences. Federal authorities detained Vang last year under the Trump administration's "Operation Metro Surge" in Minnesota. His deportation to Laos was set for one week after the pardon was granted. The board's decision, DHS says, strips away the qualifying convictions that made Vang legally removable.
The path to Vang's pardon ran through the Minnesota Clemency Review Commission, a nine-member body that screens applications before they reach the Board of Pardons. In April, the commission voted to recommend the pardon. The margin: four in favor, two against, three absent. A bare majority of a body missing a third of its members sent the case forward.
The Board of Pardons, composed of Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, retains ultimate authority. At its June 10 meeting, the board granted the pardon. Carli Stark, the commission's executive director, notified Vang by letter.
As Fox News Digital reported, Stark wrote to Vang:
"Being granted a pardon is a notable achievement and a reflection of the work you have done since your conviction."
A notable achievement. For a man who sexually assaulted a child over a period of years and, according to DHS, offered the victim $10 to keep quiet about the abuse.
Vang entered the United States through California in 1994 and received legal status under the Clinton administration. He eventually settled in Minnesota. Between 2002 and 2006, he repeatedly assaulted a girl who was 10 years old.
When police arrested Vang in 2005, he admitted to having sexual contact with the child but blamed "cultural norms in Thailand," according to the criminal complaint obtained by the New York Times. That explanation did not prevent his guilty plea or his 2006 conviction. It did not prevent a final order of removal issued the same year. But it apparently did not prevent a pardon, either.
Vang's application cited years of rehabilitation and argued he had taken full responsibility for his actions. The board found that persuasive enough to wipe his record, and, in practical terms, to shield him from the deportation flight that was days away.
Walz's handling of this case fits a broader pattern. Minnesota Republicans have already challenged the governor's claims about accountability on other fronts, including his assertions about cracking down on fraud.
DHS Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis did not mince words. In a statement reported by multiple outlets, Bis said:
"Governor Tim Walz's decision to pardon an illegal alien convicted child rapist so he can remain in our country is disgusting. These are the criminal illegal aliens he and his Minnesota sanctuary politicians are protecting."
Bis also noted that the clemency commission has granted pardons to illegal immigrants before, suggesting a pattern, not a one-off exercise of mercy.
DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin weighed in separately. Breitbart reported that Mullin called Vang "evil" and said sanctuary politicians like Walz were protecting criminal illegal aliens over American citizens.
Fox News Digital reached out to Walz, the White House, and the Ramsey County Attorney's Office for comment. None of their responses, if any, were included in the reporting.
Vang's pardon is not the only recent example of Minnesota's clemency apparatus clearing an illegal immigrant with a violent criminal record. In May, the state pardoned Jai Vang, a separate individual, also a Laotian citizen, whose criminal history includes convictions for robbery, armed robbery of a business, and driving under the influence.
And the Board of Pardons unanimously voted to pardon Xayasounethone Chandee, another Laotian national, who was convicted of assault in 1992 and issued a final order of removal in 1995. Despite that deportation order, Chandee was never removed. He went on to commit two more felony aggravated assaults with a weapon in 2008. DHS blasted that decision as well, saying the pardon stripped away the convictions that made Chandee removable.
Three pardons. Three illegal immigrants with violent records. Three cases where the practical effect was the same: blocking federal deportation orders.
The emerging pattern raises a straightforward question about whether Minnesota's clemency process is being used, whether by design or by drift, as a workaround to shelter illegal immigrants from immigration enforcement. DHS clearly believes so. Bis's statement framed the pardons as part of a sanctuary-state strategy, not as isolated acts of compassion.
Understanding why these pardons matter requires understanding how deportation law works. When an illegal immigrant loses legal status because of a criminal conviction, that conviction becomes the legal basis, the "qualifying conviction", for removal. A governor's pardon can erase the conviction from state records. If the conviction disappears, the federal government may lose the legal hook it needs to carry out the deportation.
That is precisely what DHS says happened here. Bis stated that the pardon "will take away this child rapist's qualifying convictions that made him removable from the United States," as the Washington Examiner detailed.
Vang's deportation was scheduled for one week after the pardon. The timing suggests the board understood exactly what was at stake, and chose the pardon anyway.
The broader clash between state officials and federal immigration enforcement has played out across the country. In New York City, Mayor Mamdani has openly defied federal authority on deportation protections. Minnesota now appears to be using a different mechanism, clemency, to achieve a similar result.
Walz has faced repeated criticism from the Trump administration over Minnesota's sanctuary policies. President Trump has called out Walz and other Minnesota officials for shielding illegal immigrants, including those convicted of violent crimes, from federal authorities.
The governor's office has not publicly explained the reasoning behind the Vang pardon. Neither has Attorney General Keith Ellison nor Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, the other two members of the board who participated in the June 10 decision.
Walz's political positioning on other issues has also drawn fire from within his own state. His reaction to the Supreme Court's girls' sports ruling drew sharp pushback from critics who accused him of prioritizing ideology over common sense.
Meanwhile, Minnesota's Feeding Our Future fraud scandal continues to hang over the state's political landscape, raising questions about oversight and accountability under Walz's watch.
Several questions remain open. What specific conditions, if any, are attached to Vang's pardon? Does the pardon formally end his deportation proceedings, or will federal authorities pursue removal on other grounds? Why were three of nine clemency commissioners absent for the April vote on a case this serious?
And perhaps the most basic question of all: Why did the governor of Minnesota, the state attorney general, and the chief justice of the state supreme court decide that a man who sexually assaulted a child for years deserved a clean record, seven days before he was finally going to be sent home?
Vang cited rehabilitation. The board apparently agreed. The 10-year-old girl he assaulted was not consulted.
When a state's clemency system operates to shield convicted child sex offenders from deportation, it has stopped serving justice. It is serving a political agenda, and the people paying the price are the ones the system was supposed to protect.
