Pardon Controversy
Child Sex Offender Tou Lue Vang Deported by Trump Administration Following Controversial Minnesota Pardon
Key Points
The pardon was issued by Minnesota's Clemency Review Commission, a three-member board including Gov. Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, and the board granted clemency after receiving letters of support, including one from the victim.
The DHS described the pardon as “disgusting” and highlighted Vang’s crimes, including an attempt to pay his victim for silence and his characterization of the acts as a cultural norm to marry and have sex with young girls.
Vang had lived in the United States illegally for nearly two decades after his 2006 conviction, and his removal was pursued as part of a federal crackdown nicknamed Operation Metro Surge.
Ramsey County Attorney’s Office opposed the Minnesota pardon, arguing against clemency for Vang despite the board’s action.
The pardon timeline shows Vang applied for clemency in July 2025, was granted on June 10, and federal removal occurred days later, culminating in deportation amid ongoing political debate.
Federal authorities deported Tou Lue Vang, a Laotian national who repeatedly raped a 10-year-old girl, days after Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and the state's Board of Pardons wiped his 2006 conviction from the books. Secretary of State Marco Rubio revoked Vang's legal status, and ICE removed him from the country, according to Daily Caller and Daily Wire.
The pardon, granted June 10 by Minnesota's three-member Clemency Review Commission, was meant to shield Vang from deportation. It didn't work. The Department of Homeland Security called the pardon "disgusting" and pushed ahead with removal as part of a federal enforcement operation called Operation Metro Surge, AM Greatness reported.
A 2006 Rape Case That Walz's Board Erased
Vang pleaded guilty in 2006 to first-degree criminal sexual conduct. He had repeatedly sexually assaulted a 10-year-old girl. After his conviction, he remained in the United States illegally for nearly two decades, Tampa Free Press reported.
Making his case worse, Vang tried to pay his victim to stay quiet. He also told authorities that having sex with young girls was a cultural norm in his community. The Ramsey County Attorney's Office opposed the pardon and argued against clemency. Despite that, the board voted to erase his conviction.
Walz, Ellison, and Hudson Voted to Grant Clemency
Minnesota's Clemency Review Commission has three members: Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Chief Justice Natalie Hudson. All three were involved in granting the pardon on June 10. The board received letters of support for Vang — including one from the victim herself — before making its decision, according to AOL News.
A state pardon removes a conviction under state law. It does not change federal immigration status. Legal experts noted that a state's clemency power cannot override federal deportation authority. Critics argued the board should have known this before acting.
Rubio Revoked His Status, ICE Flew Him Out
After the pardon, Rubio moved fast. He revoked Vang's legal status at the federal level. ICE then took Vang into custody and removed him from the United States. The deportation came just days after the June 10 pardon, Daily Caller reported.
DHS did not hold back in its response. The agency called the pardon "disgusting" and pointed to Vang's crimes and his bribery attempt as proof he should never have been given clemency. Rubio framed the removal as a matter of protecting American children from foreign criminals.
State Mercy vs. Federal Power: A Political Firestorm
The case sparked a sharp political fight. Supporters of the pardon said the board followed proper clemency rules and even had support from the victim. Opponents said erasing the conviction of a child rapist — regardless of procedure — was a moral failure, AM Greatness reported.
The episode highlights a real legal gap: states can pardon crimes, but they cannot stop federal immigration enforcement. Vang's case is now a flashpoint in the wider debate over who has the right to decide when a foreign national gets to stay in the United States.
Sentiment
Mostly NegativePublishers
48
Articles
45
Reach
93
