One week before a Laotian national convicted of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl was scheduled to be deported, the Minnesota Board of Pardons wiped his record clean. Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Chief Justice Natalie Hudson granted the pardon unanimously at the board's June 10 meeting, drawing immediate condemnation from the Department of Homeland Security.
Tou Lue Vang, 42, pleaded guilty in 2006 to first-degree criminal sexual conduct for repeatedly assaulting the girl between 2002 and 2006. The plea deal spared him prison time. Now, as Fox News Digital reported, that conviction has been erased, and the deportation order that followed it may be unenforceable.
The pardon could "thwart his removal from the United States," the Washington Examiner reported, by eliminating the qualifying convictions that made Vang deportable in the first place. That is the practical consequence of what Walz's clemency apparatus has done: a man who lost his legal immigration status because he sexually assaulted a child now gets a clean slate, and, potentially, a path to staying in the country.
Vang entered the United States through California in 1994. The Clinton administration granted him legal status. That status was revoked after his 2006 conviction, and a final order of removal was issued the same year.
The abuse he admitted to was not ambiguous. When police arrested Vang on the charges in 2005, he acknowledged having sexual contact with the girl but blamed "cultural norms in Thailand," according to the criminal complaint obtained by the New York Times. DHS stated that Vang offered the victim $10 to keep quiet about the abuse.
Federal authorities detained Vang last year as part of the Trump administration's "Operation Metro Surge" immigration enforcement effort in Minnesota. He was slated for deportation to Laos. Then the clemency process intervened.
In his pardon application, Vang cited years of rehabilitation and argued he had taken full responsibility for his actions. The Minnesota Clemency Review Commission voted in April to approve his petition, four members in favor, two against, three absent. The nine-member commission then recommended the pardon to the Board of Pardons, which retains ultimate authority to grant or deny.
Carli Stark, executive director of the Clemency Review Commission, sent Vang a letter after the board's decision. She wrote:
"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 for years and tried to buy her silence for ten dollars.
The Department of Homeland Security did not hold back. DHS Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis issued a statement that framed the pardon as a deliberate act of obstruction:
"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."
DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin also condemned the decision, as Breitbart reported, stating: "This evil alien from Laos repeatedly sexually assaulted a 10-year-old child. These are the illegal alien criminals sanctuary politicians like Tim Walz are protecting over American citizens."
Fox News Digital reached out to Walz, the White House, and the Ramsey County Attorney's Office, the office that originally prosecuted Vang. No responses were noted.
That silence is itself telling. Walz sat on the board that granted this pardon. He could explain his reasoning. He has chosen not to.
This is not the first time Minnesota's clemency machinery has cleared a convicted illegal immigrant facing federal removal. Just one month earlier, in May, the state pardoned Jai Vang, a separate Laotian citizen whose criminal history includes convictions for robbery, armed robbery of a business, and driving under the influence. DHS noted that the Clemency Review Commission has granted pardons to illegal immigrants before.
The timing matters. These pardons are landing while the Trump administration is actively enforcing immigration law in Minnesota through operations like Metro Surge. The state's clemency process appears to be functioning as a counter-enforcement mechanism, clearing the records that federal authorities rely on to justify removal.
President Trump has repeatedly criticized Walz and Minnesota officials over sanctuary policies that protect illegal immigrants, including those convicted of violent crimes, from federal authorities. The pardon of Tou Lue Vang is the most vivid example yet of that conflict.
Walz's broader record of governance in Minnesota has drawn sustained scrutiny. Vice President Vance referred Walz and the Minnesota attorney general to the DOJ fraud division for criminal investigation, a move tied to allegations that the administration failed to act on warnings about misuse of federal funds.
A Minnesota pardon gives the recipient what Stark's letter called "a clean slate." But several questions remain unanswered. The legal effect of a state pardon on a federal deportation order is not addressed in any of the available reporting. Whether Vang can now contest his removal, or whether ICE will proceed regardless, is unclear.
What is clear is the sequence of events. A man entered the country legally, sexually assaulted a child for years, pleaded guilty, lost his immigration status, received a deportation order, was detained by federal agents, and then, one week before his scheduled removal, received a pardon from the governor, the attorney general, and the chief justice of the state where the crime occurred.
The Clemency Review Commission's vote was not even unanimous. Only four of nine members voted in favor. Three were absent. The pardon advanced on a bare majority of a body that couldn't muster a quorum of engaged members.
A House oversight report previously found that the Walz administration sat on fraud warnings while billions in federal funds drained from the state. That episode raised questions about whether Minnesota's government was capable of basic accountability. The Vang pardon raises a different but related question: whether the state's leaders are willing to exercise judgment at all when ideology points in one direction and public safety points in another.
Vang told police that assaulting the girl was "a cultural thing," the New York Post reported. He has a wife and six children in the United States. His pardon application argued rehabilitation. The state accepted that argument. DHS did not.
Meanwhile, the victim, a girl who was ten years old when the abuse began, has received no public acknowledgment from the officials who cleared her abuser's record. The Clemency Review Commission's letter praised Vang's personal growth. No comparable statement addressed the person he harmed.
The federal government has also been pursuing legal avenues against Walz and Minnesota Democrats in an immigration probe, though a federal judge recently quashed DOJ subpoenas in that case. The legal and political battles between Minnesota and Washington over immigration enforcement show no sign of easing.
Pardons exist for a reason. The power of clemency is written into state constitutions because justice sometimes demands a second look. But clemency is supposed to serve justice, not subvert it. And it is not supposed to function as an end-run around federal immigration law.
Governor Walz, Attorney General Ellison, and Chief Justice Hudson had the authority to grant this pardon. Whether they had the judgment to do so is another matter. They cleared a convicted child sex offender's record one week before he was set to leave the country. They did it on the recommendation of a commission where three of nine members didn't bother to show up. And they have offered no public explanation.
When your clemency process congratulates a child sex offender on his "notable achievement" while saying nothing to his victim, the process is no longer serving justice. It is serving politics.
