Texas – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz sharply criticized Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz after the Trump administration announced it had deported a Laotian national whose state pardon had drawn national attention, calling the case evidence of what he described as misplaced priorities among Democratic leaders.
In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Cruz responded to reports that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had revoked the man’s legal status, allowing federal authorities to carry out his removal from the United States.
“This is depraved,” Cruz wrote. “Tim Walz pardoned an illegal alien convicted of repeatedly sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl and tried to keep him in Minnesota. The Trump Administration made sure he was deported. This is the modern Democrat Party: criminals first. Victims last.”
Cruz’s comments followed an announcement from Rubio, who said the State Department revoked the legal status of Tou Lue Vang, a Laotian national who had previously received a pardon from Minnesota’s Board of Pardons before being taken into federal custody and deported. Rubio said the action ensured Vang “will never pose a threat to any American ever again.” Multiple news outlets, including Fox News and The Guardian, reported on the deportation and the political controversy surrounding the case, CBS News reported.
According to court records cited by those reports, Vang pleaded guilty in 2005 to first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving a 10-year-old girl. Prosecutors alleged the abuse occurred repeatedly between 2002 and 2004. Following his conviction, an immigration judge ordered his removal from the United States in 2006. However, the deportation order was not immediately carried out because Laos had not been routinely accepting deportees from the United States at that time.
The case resurfaced in June when Minnesota’s Board of Pardons granted Vang clemency. Under Minnesota law, the board consists of Gov. Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson. The pardon restored certain civil rights but did not erase the conviction or automatically prevent federal immigration authorities from pursuing deportation.
According to reporting by The Guardian and other outlets, Vang sought the pardon after completing his sentence, arguing he had rebuilt his life and accepted responsibility for his actions. Court documents also indicated the victim submitted a letter supporting the clemency request, stating she had forgiven him. Prosecutors opposed the pardon.
The decision quickly became the subject of national political debate. Republicans, including Cruz, argued the pardon demonstrated poor judgment and jeopardized public safety, particularly because Vang remained subject to federal immigration enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security also criticized the clemency decision, while several Republican lawmakers accused Minnesota officials of putting ideology ahead of the interests of crime victims.
Rubio announced that the State Department revoked Vang’s legal status before coordinating with the Department of Homeland Security to complete his removal from the country. In public remarks, Rubio said the action reflected the Trump administration’s commitment to removing noncitizens convicted of serious crimes from the United States.
Legal experts have noted that a state pardon and federal immigration law operate independently. Although a governor or state pardon board may grant clemency for a state conviction, immigration consequences are governed by federal law. In many cases, a pardon does not eliminate an existing removal order or prevent federal immigration authorities from pursuing deportation.
The case has also reignited broader political debates over immigration enforcement, executive clemency, and public safety ahead of the 2026 elections. Supporters of the pardon argued it recognized rehabilitation after nearly two decades, while critics maintained that the seriousness of the offense outweighed those considerations.
Cruz joined several other Republican officials who have praised the Trump administration’s handling of the case, portraying the deportation as an example of stricter immigration enforcement and contrasting it with decisions made by Democratic leaders. His comments echoed a broader Republican message that immigration enforcement should prioritize the removal of noncitizens convicted of violent crimes, while Democrats have argued that clemency decisions should consider rehabilitation and the individual facts of each case.
