Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
A Border Patrol agent was caught on video telling another to throw tear gas “for fun,” according to a court filing. They also mocked protesters and residents who were getting gassed.
Executive Summary
A court filing and related reporting allege that video exists showing a Border Patrol agent telling a colleague to “throw tear gas for fun” and mocking people who were being gassed; the materials available in the record do not cleanly confirm that exact quote but do document multiple contested videos and filings about Border Patrol tear-gas deployments in Chicago protests and immigration operations between late October and early November 2025 [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and court documents present two competing narratives: plaintiffs assert a pattern of aggressive, possibly unlawful crowd-control tactics, while DHS and Border Patrol argue the footage shows agents under attack and using force defensibly; the court has imposed oversight and demanded unedited footage in response to those disputes [4] [3].
1. What the claim actually says — and what the filings show about it
The central claim extracted from the materials is specific: a court filing alleges a Border Patrol agent was captured on video telling another to throw tear gas “for fun,” and that agents mocked protesters and residents who were exposed to that gas. The filings assembled by plaintiffs and summarized in news reports frame that allegation as part of a broader complaint about potential violations of a temporary restraining order that limits tear-gas use unless an immediate safety threat exists. Court dockets and judge questions during testimony show active judicial scrutiny of whether agents followed the order, with the judge requiring daily reports from Border Patrol leadership and ordering production of footage to resolve competing accounts [1] [3]. The available summaries show the allegation is in the filings, but they do not all reproduce an uncontested, time-stamped clip of the quoted language.
2. What the Department of Homeland Security and Border Patrol say in response
DHS and Border Patrol have responded by releasing selective footage and by asserting their actions occurred amid active, threatening crowd behavior during an immigration operation, including objects thrown at agents and vehicles vandalized. Those releases have been used to justify tear gas and other crowd-control measures as necessary for officer safety. DHS has resisted producing some unedited footage to the court promptly, prompting criticism and a judge’s order demanding fuller transparency; DHS statements to date emphasize the context of an enforcement operation and an apparent siege-like environment rather than agents acting for amusement [2] [4]. Government filings and testimony from Border Patrol leadership also stress that agency policy governed the deployments and that any use of force was intended to protect personnel.
3. Independent reporting and court oversight paint a mixed picture
Independent and local reporting cited in the filings documents incidents where agents appear to deploy tear gas and where residents and journalists complain of being gassed despite orders limiting use. Those reports note viral videos, community complaints, and a judge’s concern about compliance with court constraints. Plaintiffs’ lawyers point to footage they say shows gratuitous behavior and mocking language; media summaries and the court record confirm at least one notice of violation was filed against the Border Patrol chief, Gregory Bovino, for conduct that could breach the judge’s order [5] [3]. At the same time, government-provided clips show protesters throwing rocks and fireworks at agents, supporting the DHS framing that context matters to evaluations of necessity and legality.
4. What the court has done and why it matters
Federal judges have reacted decisively: a judge has required daily court appearances and reporting by the Border Patrol chief and ordered production of unedited footage to resolve factual disputes. The judge has also maintained limits on tear-gas use pending a preliminary injunction hearing set for November 5, 2025, reflecting a judicial determination that the balance between public-safety needs and constitutional limits on force is in dispute and merits close supervision [1] [3]. The court’s interventions indicate that the alleged conduct — whether an agent’s flippant remark or aggressive tactic — is being treated as material to compliance with judicially imposed rules and to possible remedial orders if violations are substantiated.
5. Bottom line: claim present in filings but not uniformly corroborated on video
The precise quote — an agent saying to “throw tear gas for fun” — appears in plaintiffs’ court filings as an allegation drawn from video, but the public summaries and DHS-released clips provided in news coverage do not offer an unambiguous, time-stamped, widely vetted clip that incontrovertibly captures that line. The record does show multiple videos, contested interpretations, and ongoing judicial orders to produce unedited footage because the differences in accounts matter for compliance and accountability. Readers should treat the allegation as a serious, documented claim under active legal scrutiny: it is part of a broader pattern alleged by plaintiffs and disputed by DHS and Border Patrol, with the federal court now demanding evidence to resolve competing narratives [1] [2] [4].