Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) has developed a habit of creating political headaches with his own comments, and this week provided yet another example. Fresh off the Supreme Court's ruling that "the States may maintain women's and girls' sports for biological females," Walz responded with a message that quickly ignited another round of criticism.
"As the Supreme Court says states can be cruel to trans kids, my message is clear: Here in Minnesota, we stand with and value our trans neighbors and youth," Walz wrote on social media.
The response was predictable, but so was the backlash. Minnesota Republicans argued that Walz had completely missed the point of the Court's decision. State Sen. Julia Coleman fired back, writing, "What's cruel is putting your base above female safety and opportunities."
That controversy was still unfolding when another decision involving Walz began drawing even more scrutiny.
In mid-June, the Minnesota Board of Pardons approved a pardon for Tou Lue Vang, a 42-year-old illegal immigrant whose criminal record included a conviction stemming from the repeated sexual assault of a 10-year-old girl over a two-year period beginning when he was 18 years old.
NEW: DHS is accusing MN Gov. Tim Walz of trying to shield a Laotian illegal alien pedophile from being deported after Walz pardoned him for a 2006 conviction in which he repeatedly raped a 10-year-old girl in MN. DHS says Tou Lue Vang was issued a deportation order immediately… pic.twitter.com/O1MlC8AC5I
— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) July 1, 2026
According to reporting from The New York Times, the pardon was granted on June 10 after Vang submitted a letter expressing remorse for his actions and explaining that clearing his record could help him remain in the United States with his wife and six children.
The victim also submitted a letter supporting the pardon.
In that letter, she wrote, "What happened to me was wrong, but I have had many years to think about this. I have made peace with it. I forgive him."
That statement became one of the central justifications cited by supporters of the pardon.
Vang pleaded guilty in 2005 to first-degree criminal sexual conduct under a plea agreement that spared him from serving prison time. During the original investigation, he reportedly attempted to explain his conduct by telling investigators that "it's a cultural thing to marry and have sex with girls as young as 12."
Despite that explanation, he was convicted.
Following the conviction, immigration authorities initiated removal proceedings. An immigration judge ordered Vang deported in 2006.
The order, however, was never carried out.
For years, Laos accepted very few deportees, particularly ethnic Laotians and Hmong with old removal orders. As a result, Vang remained in the United States under supervised release instead of being removed.
That situation changed after the Trump administration renewed deportation efforts and Laos began accepting larger numbers of deportees with longstanding removal orders. Vang was detained by immigration authorities in December during what federal officials described as Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota.
The Minnesota Board of Pardons voted June 10 to grant Tou Lue Vang, of Laos, a pardon for his 2006 convictions for sexual assault—strongarm sodomy and procuring a child for prostitution. This pardon came just a week before Vang was set to be REMOVED from our nation.…
— U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (@ICEgov) July 1, 2026
The pardon now potentially changes the legal landscape for his immigration case.
The Times noted that clearing his criminal record gives Vang "an avenue to fight deportation."
The Department of Homeland Security reacted sharply.
"Governor Tim Walz's decision to pardon an illegal alien convicted child rapist so he can remain in our country is disgusting," Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis said in a statement.
Bis continued by arguing that Vang lost his legal status after the conviction and that the pardon removes the qualifying conviction that had made him removable under immigration law.
Walz was not the only official involved in the decision. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, a Walz appointee, also serve on the Board of Pardons and joined in approving the request.
The board has defended its action by pointing to the victim's support for clemency. Interestingly, The New York Times also reported that the board denied another pardon request that same day from a different man from Laos who had also been convicted of a child sex offense and was likewise facing deportation.
That distinction has raised additional questions about how the board weighed the facts in each case.
Court records cited by the Times indicate that Vang did not commit additional serious crimes after his conviction beyond minor traffic violations.
Even so, the pardon has generated intense criticism because of the nature of the original offense and the consequences that followed. Vang avoided prison through his plea agreement, remained in the United States for years after his deportation order could not be executed, and now has received a pardon that may strengthen his effort to remain in the country permanently.
For critics, those facts make the board's decision difficult to justify, regardless of the victim's remarkable willingness to forgive.
Victim impact statements often carry significant weight in criminal justice proceedings, and forgiveness can be a powerful factor in clemency decisions. But opponents argue that the severity of the crime, combined with what they view as relatively limited punishment over the past two decades, should have carried even greater weight when the board considered whether to erase Vang's conviction.
The timing is also politically notable.
Walz recently announced that he will not seek another term as governor. Had he remained on the ballot, this pardon almost certainly would have become a centerpiece of campaign attacks, forcing him to repeatedly defend a decision that many voters would likely view as deeply controversial.