What specific ICE/DHS policies list approved crowd‑control chemical agents and their formulations?

1. What official policies exist and where control over crowd‑control tools is housed

ICE does not publish a discrete, protest‑specific manual that lists authorized riot control agents and their chemical makeups; instead, ICE enforcement actions fall under Department of Homeland Security use‑of‑force policies and agency oversight, and CBP (Customs and Border Protection) has its own use‑of‑force guidance that references less‑lethal devices broadly (batons, chemical agents, electronic control weapons) but does not catalogue precise chemical formulations in publicly available policy texts cited by watchdogs and news reporting ^{[1] [2]}.

2. How reporting and watchdogs describe the gap between practice and policy

Investigations and NGOs have documented repeated deployments of “chemical irritants” and pepper spray by federal agents in cities from Chicago to Minneapolis, and Human Rights Watch explicitly notes that ICE lacks a protest‑specific policy document while remaining subject to DHS oversight, underscoring a practical gap between what agents have used in the field and any publicly enumerated list of approved agents or concentrations ^{[5] [1]}.

3. What judicial findings and news accounts reveal about the substances actually deployed

Court rulings and press coverage have described agents using pepper spray, tear gas and other “chemical irritants” during recent operations, prompting injunctions that bar use of pepper‑spray or “similar nonlethal munitions and crowd dispersal tools” against peaceful protesters—language that names tactics in operational terms but stops short of identifying molecular names, blends or concentrations in DHS/ICE policy documents cited in the litigation and reporting ^{[3] [6] [4]}.

4. Training, procurement and operational statements: where specifics might live (but aren’t public)

DHS and ICE statements point to training curricula and procurement records—news reporting notes purchases of “chemical sprays” and other gear in federal acquisition data—but these sources reflect acquisition and training scale rather than a public policy table of chemical agents and formulas; CNN’s reporting on weapons and equipment purchases and ICE’s general training claims illustrate where agency practice is documented, yet do not substitute for a published list of approved chemical compounds and their formulations ^{[7] [2]}.

5. Legal and accountability implications of the absence of a public list

Civil litigants and judges have invoked constitutional limits and preliminary injunctions precisely because public policy language is operationally vague: plaintiffs argue deployments were retaliatory and excessive, while judges have issued orders limiting use of pepper spray and similar tools—outcomes that reveal courts filling gaps left by the absence of a clear, publicly accessible policy registry enumerating allowed crowd‑control agents and their formulations ^{[3] [8] [9]}.

6. What this reporting cannot confirm

The reviewed reporting does not provide a DHS or ICE document that explicitly lists approved crowd‑control chemical agents by chemical name or specifies their formulations (concentration, carrier solvents, additives) in publicly available policy texts; therefore, it is not possible from these sources to cite a formal ICE/DHS policy that contains such a chemical compendium ^{[1] [2]}. If internal procurement, training or operational manuals exist with such technical specifications, those files were not made available in the sources provided.