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.
What federal policies govern ICE use of chemical agents like tear gas?
Executive summary
Federal immigration agencies’ use of chemical agents like tear gas is governed primarily by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) use-of-force directives and temporary court orders in specific jurisdictions; reporting shows DHS policy limits chemical agent use (for example requiring dispersal orders) but litigation and appeals have limited or altered local judicial restrictions on ICE and Border Patrol deployments (see DHS/ICE guidance referenced in local reporting and the recent appeals court action) [1] [2]. Coverage shows disputed practice on the ground — plaintiffs and local officials say agents repeatedly used tear gas in Chicago and Portland, while DHS/ICE officials say agents are trained to use minimum necessary force [3] [4].
1. What the written rules say: DHS directives and departmental guidance
DHS-level directives set limits on when chemical irritants may be used: local reporting describes a departmental directive requiring that tear gas be used for crowd control only after a dispersal order has been issued and that sufficient time be allowed for that order to be heard and repeated if necessary [1]. News outlets documenting DHS policy also note restrictions in the DHS use-of-force policy that bar chemical weapons against certain vulnerable people (young children, the elderly, visibly pregnant women) and emphasize that officers should use “minimum amount of force necessary” [5] [4].
2. How courts and judges have affected on-the-ground practice
Federal judges have intervened in some local cases: in Chicago a U.S. district judge issued an order that restricted how ICE agents could use tear gas and other weapons; that order included warnings and limits such as two dispersal warnings before deploying agents in that area [2] [1]. An appeals court later stayed parts of that order — blocking some requirements while leaving in place other provisions like limits on tear-gas use and body-camera mandates — illustrating that judicial oversight can constrain but not always permanently change agency tactics [2] [6].
3. Tension between policy and field behavior — disputes in reporting
Multiple reporters and local officials say DHS policy is being tested in the field. The Washington Post and local outlets documented deployments that they say sometimes violated American policing norms — including direct strikes with munitions and deployments in residential areas and near schools — while DHS statements quoted by outlets insist agents are trained to prioritize safety and use minimum force [3] [4]. Plaintiffs in lawsuits and local leaders argue the frequency and manner of chemical-agent use amount to violations of free-assembly rights and public-safety norms [7] [8].
4. Distinctions in terminology and legal framing
Coverage underscores an important legal and practical distinction: “tear gas” as used by law enforcement is an irritant dispersed as droplets or particles rather than a battlefield chemical weapon, and it is treated differently under domestic law than it is under the Chemical Weapons Convention [1]. Local policies and DHS guidance treat “less‑lethal” chemical agents (tear gas, OC spray, pepper balls) differently from firearms and categorize their permissible use under crowd-control and use‑of‑force rules [5] [1].
5. Case examples showing how policy plays out locally
In Chicago and Portland, reporting documents repeated deployments outside ICE facilities and during enforcement operations; in Chicago, incidents included tear-gas use in residential blocks and near a Halloween parade, prompting gubernatorial complaints and legal action that produced temporary restraining orders and later appeals [9] [6] [2]. In Portland, reporting described nights where officers “blanketed the street” with tear gas and other less‑lethal munitions, provoking questions about whether policy was followed [4] [10].
6. Competing perspectives and legal stakes
DHS/ICE maintain that agents are trained and required to use minimum necessary force and to follow departmental directives; plaintiffs, local officials, and civil‑liberties reporting argue deployments have been excessive and sometimes unlawful, prompting litigation and judicial restrictions [4] [3] [7]. Appeals court activity in Chicago shows federal courts may narrow or pause local remedies even as they leave some restrictions in place — a reminder that legal outcomes can be partial and changeable [2] [6].
7. What available sources do not mention or leave unclear
Available sources do not mention the specific DHS directive number or the full text of the DHS use‑of‑force manual governing chemical-agent use; reporting summarizes policy content but does not reproduce the complete regulatory statute or internal policy document [1] [5]. Sources also do not report a comprehensive, agency‑wide accounting of every chemical-agent deployment nationwide; coverage focuses on high-profile incidents in Chicago, Portland and Broadview [9] [4] [8].
Conclusion — the framework and the fight over enforcement: DHS use‑of‑force rules and departmental directives establish when ICE and Border Patrol may deploy chemical irritants, but local court orders, civil‑liberties lawsuits, and contested on‑the‑ground practice have repeatedly tested those limits. Reporting shows tension between agency assertions of training and limits and community and media accounts of frequent, harmful deployments, with federal courts playing a variable role in enforcing or pausing local restrictions [1] [3] [2].