A controversial pardon granted last month by Minnesota’s top officials has ignited a firestorm of criticism from federal authorities and conservatives alike. Governor Tim Walz, along with Attorney General Keith Ellison and Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, approved clemency for Tou Lue Vang, a 42-year-old Laotian national convicted of repeatedly sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl.
The decision came on June 10, 2026, through the Minnesota Board of Pardons. It wiped Vang’s 2006 conviction from the books at a time when he was facing imminent deportation.
The Original Crime and the “Cultural” Defense
Tou Lue Vang is a Minnesota man whose June 2026 full pardon for a past criminal sexual conduct conviction sparked significant debate and federal immigration criticism.
Source: Department of Homeland Security / Minnesota Board of Pardons Public Records Archive
Vang was convicted in Ramsey County of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Court records show he assaulted the girl multiple times between 2002 and 2004, starting when she was just 10 years old.
When police questioned him in 2005, Vang offered a disturbing justification. He told investigators he “made a mistake” but claimed “it’s a minor thing” and that “it is a cultural thing in Thailand to marry and have sex with girls as young as 12.” He also blamed the child victim, saying she was at fault and should have been arrested too.
Vang ultimately entered a plea and avoided prison time. An immigration judge later ordered his removal from the United States.
More Read
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison is pictured in an official portrait. He has been a prominent figure in managing major state-level legal cases, civil rights initiatives, and consumer protection efforts within the state.
Source: Minnesota Attorney General’s Office Media Archive
Why the Pardon Happened Now
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison is captured speaking during a panel discussion, interview, or public address. He continues to play a prominent role in addressing civil rights, consumer protections, and legal reform initiatives.
Source: Associated Press / Minnesota Public Radio Archive
The Board of Pardons granted the extraordinary pardon after a 4-2 recommendation from the state’s Clemency Review Commission. Officials pointed to several factors:
- A statement from the victim saying she had made peace with what happened and forgave Vang after many years.
- A letter of regret from Vang himself.
- Community support letters.
- Vang’s clean record in the years since, including his role as a married father of six.
Walz’s office and Ellison’s team have defended the move as following a thorough process where the victim’s wishes carried significant weight.
Federal Government Fires Back
The white marble facade and magnificent dome of the Minnesota State Capitol building stand prominently against a partly cloudy blue sky in Saint Paul. The historic structure is well-known for housing the state’s legislative chambers and features the famous golden Quadriga chariot sculpture positioned above the main entrance.
Source: Minnesota Historical Society / National Park Service National Register of Historic Places
The Department of Homeland Security did not hold back. Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis issued a blunt statement calling the pardon “disgusting.”
More Read
“Governor Tim Walz’s decision to pardon an illegal alien convicted child rapist so he can remain in our country is disgusting,” Bis said. “This pardon will take away this child rapist’s qualifying convictions that made him removable from the United States.”
DHS noted that the pardon directly interferes with federal deportation efforts. Critics argue it effectively shields a convicted offender from removal at a time when the Trump administration has prioritized deporting criminal noncitizens.
Viral Outrage on Social Media
The story gained massive traction after a post by conservative commentator Eric Daugherty on X went viral. He highlighted Vang’s original “cultural thing” excuse and called for Walz, Ellison, and the Chief Justice to resign immediately.
Many online echoed that sentiment, arguing no cultural tradition excuses the rape of a child and that leaders who sign off on such pardons have failed in their basic duty to protect the public.
What Happens Next
The pardon does not erase the underlying facts of the case or the victim’s experience. It does, however, remove one of the key legal barriers that made Vang eligible for deportation.
Minnesota officials maintain the process was proper and victim-centered. Federal authorities and critics see it as another example of state leaders prioritizing other considerations over public safety and immigration enforcement.
More Read
The case has quickly become a flashpoint in the ongoing national debate over sanctuary policies, criminal noncitizens, and accountability for elected officials who wield clemency powers.
As more details emerge, one thing is clear: this pardon has touched a raw nerve, especially among parents and those who believe certain crimes should carry lifelong consequences regardless of later forgiveness or “cultural” claims.
The outrage shows no signs of fading anytime soon.
