The Department of Homeland Security is condemning Minnesota leaders after the state's Board of Pardons granted clemency to Tou Lue Vang, a Laotian national convicted in 2006 of repeatedly sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl between 2002 and 2004. The board, which includes Democratic Gov. Tim Walz, Democratic Attorney General Keith Ellison, and state Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, voted June 10 to pardon Vang, who lost his legal immigration status following the conviction.
According to DHS, an immigration judge issued a final order of removal against Vang in 2006. For years, Laos refused to accept many deportees, but that policy changed after President Donald Trump returned to office in 2025. Federal officials say Vang was on the verge of deportation before the pardon was granted.
What the Left Is Saying
Minnesota Democratic leaders have defended the Board of Pardons process as a legitimate exercise of executive clemency authority. The decision came after an extensive review that included letters submitted on Vang's behalf, including one from the victim herself, who told the board she had forgiven him and supported his request for clemency.
The victim's statement weighed heavily in the board's decision, according to Minnesota officials. Ramsey County Attorney John Choi's office, which prosecuted the original case, opposed the pardon but acknowledged that Vang received a lenient sentence partly because the victim, who was 12 when the case was prosecuted, faced pressure from family members not to cooperate with authorities.
Progressive advocates have noted that clemency decisions are designed to consider individual circumstances and rehabilitation, and that pardons do not erase the seriousness of underlying conduct. Supporters argue Minnesota's process followed state law and appropriately weighed victim input as part of restorative justice principles.
What the Right Is Saying
DHS Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis called the pardon "disgusting" in a statement released by the department. "These are the criminal illegal aliens he and his Minnesota sanctuary politicians are protecting," Bis said, adding that the pardon would eliminate convictions that made Vang removable from the United States.
Republican lawmakers have seized on the case as evidence of what they describe as dangerous sanctuary policies in Democratic-led states. The administration has prioritized deportation of non-citizens with criminal convictions since Trump returned to office and has repeatedly criticized Minnesota and other blue states over immigration enforcement.
DHS also pointed to Vang's pardon as part of a broader pattern, noting that Minnesota's Clemency Review Commission previously approved a pardon for another Laotian immigrant whose criminal history included armed robbery and drunk driving. Immigration enforcement advocates argue such decisions undermine federal efforts to remove dangerous individuals from the country.
What the Numbers Show
According to court documents cited by DHS, Vang was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct in 2006. Investigators said he attempted to pay the victim $10 to remain silent about the abuse and during a police interview attempted to justify his actions by claiming it was "a cultural thing" to marry and have sex with girls as young as 12.
Immigration court records show Vang received a final order of removal in 2006. He has remained in the United States for approximately two decades while that order was effectively unenforceable due to Laos' refusal to accept deportees. The change in Laos' policy after Trump's return created conditions for potential removal, which the pardon may now disrupt.
The Minnesota Board of Pardons operates under state constitutional authority and requires a majority vote from its three members: the governor, attorney general, and chief justice of the state Supreme Court.
The Bottom Line
Whether the pardon ultimately prevents Vang's deportation remains to be determined through the immigration court system. Federal officials argue that removing the conviction underlying his removal order could significantly complicate those efforts. The case is likely to test the intersection of state clemency powers and federal immigration enforcement authority.
The controversy comes as the Trump administration continues prioritizing criminal non-citizen deportation and has intensified criticism of Democratic-led states over sanctuary policies. Minnesota's decision highlights ongoing tensions between state executive powers and federal immigration priorities that may ultimately require judicial resolution.