What chemicals are commonly used by U.S. federal agents for crowd control and how are they regulated?
Executive summary
Federal agents in the United States commonly deploy riot‑control chemicals such as tear gas (various “lachrymators”), pepper spray (oleoresin capsicum, OC), and irritant payloads in pepper‑ball projectiles during crowd operations, and courts and human‑rights groups have documented their use in multiple recent federal operations [1] [2] [3]. Those agents are governed unevenly: agency use‑of‑force rules and some federal regulations authorize their deployment in defined circumstances, while statutory chemical‑manufacturing oversight and international guidance leave significant gaps that critics say produce weak civilian control and transparency [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. What chemicals are actually being used on U.S. streets
Reporting and organizational reviews identify two broad classes of riot control agents in domestic federal use: tear gases (commonly delivered as CN, CS, or other lachrymatory compounds) and pepper‑based irritants (OC), alongside compound formulations placed into munitions such as pepper balls and chemical grenades [3] [2] [1]. Coverage of federal operations cites deployments of tear gas canisters, pepper spray and “pepper bullets” or pepper‑filled projectiles fired from compressed‑air launchers; Human Rights Watch and news outlets described grenades, large cylinder sprays and small projectiles carrying chemical irritants [2] [1].
2. How those chemicals are delivered — and why delivery matters
Federal actors do not only “spray” chemicals: munitions include canisters and grenades that aerosolize agents at range, pepper‑ball projectiles that fragment on impact to disperse irritant payloads, and large cylinder systems for area spraying — all delivery choices that affect exposure, injury risk and medical harm [2] [1]. Physicians for Human Rights and Human Rights Watch note that delivery method (grenade vs. targeted spray vs. projectile) is central to harm assessments because kinetic impact and dispersal patterns change injury profiles [8] [2].
3. The formal rules that authorize and constrain use
Federal regulations and agency policies set boundaries for “less‑than‑lethal” chemical use: the Bureau of Prisons has explicit regulatory text authorizing chemical agents in immediate use‑of‑force emergencies [4], and agency use‑of‑force policies — including Department of Homeland Security components like ICE and Border Patrol — set internal rules about when crowd‑control devices are permitted and where they should not be aimed [5] [9]. Courts have also stepped in to limit deployment when fact patterns show retaliatory or indiscriminate use — several injunctions and hearings have arisen from allegations of excessive chemical use in federal operations [10] [11].
4. Chemical‑safety and manufacturing oversight: fragmented federal authority
Broader chemical regulation in the United States (e.g., under TSCA and EPA review mechanisms) addresses manufacture, significant new uses, and risks of chemical substances, but those statutory systems were designed for lifecycle pollution and occupational risks and have limited, indirect reach over law‑enforcement munitions procurement and operational use [12]. Independent analyses and legal briefs argue that the manufacture and sale of crowd‑control munitions are “poorly regulated,” with procurement, transparency, and testing gaps that mean first responders and the public often lack full information about exact formulations or risks [7] [3].
5. Competing perspectives, human‑rights standards and the litigation trail
Federal officials defend crowd‑control chemicals as necessary to address property damage or threats to officer safety and point to internal policy frameworks that restrict retaliatory use [5], while human‑rights groups and medical experts contend that federal deployments have at times been excessive, indiscriminate, or inconsistent with international guidance on less‑lethal weapons — a claim supported by recent Human Rights Watch reporting and litigation alleging misuse in Chicago, Minneapolis and Los Angeles [2] [1] [8]. Courts have found evidence of improper deployments in some cases and issued injunctions limiting use, underscoring that legal oversight, not only policy, shapes when and how chemicals may be used [11] [10].