ChongLy “Scott” Thao’s arrest in St. Paul, Minnesota, on January 18, 2026, has sparked significant media attention and public outrage. The incident went viral due to footage showing Thao, a 56-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, being led from his home in freezing temperatures, dressed only in underwear and sandals. However, there are key details in this case that challenge the narrative presented by the Thao family and various news outlets.
The Thao family alleges that ICE agents forcibly entered their home without a warrant, pointing guns at them, including a 4-year-old child. They claim the situation escalated without justification. Yet, this portrayal does not align with reality. The agents did possess an administrative warrant, a tool permitted under new ICE guidelines. Rather than being a blunder, the use of this administrative warrant aligns with ICE’s directives that authorize entry when a suspect with a final removal order is believed to be present. Given the dangerous nature of the targets—convicted sex offenders—it was deemed necessary for ICE agents to act swiftly.
Agents arrived because they were searching for Kongmeng Vang and Lue Moua, both identified as dangerous individuals with serious criminal backgrounds. Reports describe Moua as a “violent illegal alien sexual offender,” while Vang has ties to gang activity and sexual assault. The urgency in ICE’s tactics can be attributed to the need to prioritize public safety over suspect comfort.
Thao’s refusal to comply with the identification verification process further complicated the situation. ICE utilized a mobile biometric app to confirm identities, but Thao declined to let agents fingerprint him. Had he cooperated, he may not have faced any detention. Instead, he was taken into custody, photographed, and fingerprinted, returning home only after confirmation of his citizenship.
The media narrative has depicted this situation as ICE overstepping their bounds, particularly since they took a citizen out of his home in such an undignified manner. However, Thao’s clothing choices at the time of the encounter seem to stem from the timing of the incident rather than ICE’s actions. Reports indicate he was already in his underwear when agents arrived.
There are also peculiar elements surrounding the Thao family’s connections to the criminal targets. Thao’s son, Chris, reported being stopped by ICE on his way to work in a borrowed car. The first name of the car’s owner matches that of one of the men ICE sought. This raises questions about the connections leading officers to Thao’s address. If there were suspicions surrounding that car, the logical course would have been for agents to trace the vehicle’s registration rather than target Thao’s home.
Furthermore, records show that one of the key targets, Lue Moua, has been incarcerated and would not have been at the Thao residence. This raises further questions regarding how ICE linked Thao to these alleged offenders. The Thao family asserts that they will pursue legal action for an alleged violation of Thao’s rights, but many key factors hint that the incident’s roots may be deeper and more complex than a simple case of rights infringement.
While the family frames this as an unfortunate encounter with an overreaching agency, the facts indicate that ICE targeted the correct residence based on intelligence related to a convicted criminal still at large. The portrayal of ICE’s actions as reckless or erroneous does not hold up when examined against the legality of their operations and the context of public safety.
In light of the incident’s details, a thorough investigation into the connections and circumstances surrounding the case may be warranted. The scrutiny surrounding the actions taken by ICE reflects broader concerns about immigration policy and enforcement practices. However, in this instance, the agents operated within their procedural guidelines in pursuit of a public safety concern, revealing a more nuanced story than what the headlines suggest.
"*" indicates required fields
