What training do ICE agents receive on the use of pepper spray during encounters?
Executive summary
ICE’s formal detention-use-of-force standard names oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray—“pepper spray”—as an authorized intermediate force weapon and requires staff training on use of force, but public reporting and litigation show gaps between written policy and field behavior, inconsistent oversight, and recurring complaints about excessive or indiscriminate deployments [1] [2]. News investigations and local probes document repeated incidents where agents used OC and other chemical irritants at protests and in facilities, prompting local investigations, lawsuits, and sharp criticism from civil‑liberties advocates [3] [4] [5].
1. What ICE’s written rules say about OC spray and training
ICE’s 2011 detention standards explicitly list OC spray as an authorized intermediate force device and require that uses of intermediate force—including pepper spray—be reported and documented in the detainee’s file; the same standard contains sections on staff training for use of force, indicating that OC is an approved tool subject to training and reporting requirements [1].
2. How training is supposed to translate into practice—documentation and reporting rules
Under the standards, facilities must promptly notify field office directors and place a copy of use‑of‑force reports in detainee files when intermediate devices are used, a chain-of-command and documentation requirement intended to allow oversight of chemical agent deployments [1].
3. Incidents that test the training-to-practice gap
Video and contemporaneous reporting show federal agents deploying large quantities of OC and “pepper balls” at protests and in detention contexts—sometimes at close range or from elevated positions—raising questions about whether officers followed de‑escalation training and proportionality rules described in policy [3] [6] [5]. Local reporting from Hartford and Minneapolis documents multiple pepper‑spray deployments at protests tied to ICE actions, spurring municipal investigations [4] [7] [8].
4. Oversight, internal review, and litigation that reveal training failures or ambiguity
Civil suits and internal oversight cited in news reporting show episodes where guards or agents used OC in ways plaintiffs called excessive; NPR’s reporting on a 2020 Riverside detention‑center case detailed footage of officers waiving and then deploying pepper spray and noted an internal DHS review that flagged harmful aftercare practices such as advising hot water, suggesting training and supervision shortfalls [2]. Lawsuits around Broadview and other facilities allege indiscriminate use of chemical munitions and contend training or command control was inadequate to prevent harm [5].
5. Competing narratives: agency policy versus critics and local officials
ICE’s policy framework provides explicit authorization and training expectations for OC, which the agency and federal defenders point to when defending deployments; critics—including local police leaders, civil‑rights advocates, journalists and plaintiffs in lawsuits—contend that on‑the‑ground conduct frequently departs from those standards and that tactics have been aggressive and poorly supervised, a contention borne out by multiple video reviews and local officials’ investigations [1] [3] [8] [5]. Some local law enforcement and protest organizers say municipal officers are trained in de‑escalation even when federal agents appear not to prioritize community impact, reflecting differing institutional mandates and cultures [4].
6. What the reporting does not prove and where questions remain
Public documents and news accounts establish that OC spray is authorized and that training is required, and they document numerous controversial deployments, but available reporting does not provide a comprehensive, up‑to‑date curriculum or centralized training records showing how often ICE agents receive specific, scenario‑based pepper‑spray instruction, nor does it quantify compliance rates with the written reporting procedures across all field offices—gaps that limit definitive conclusions about agency‑wide training fidelity [1] [3] [2].
7. Bottom line
The rulebook is clear: ICE authorizes OC spray and mandates training and reporting [1]; the body of video, local investigations and litigation, however, documents recurring uses that raise credible concerns about whether that training and supervisory oversight are consistently applied in the field, a tension that has triggered probes, lawsuits and public outcry [3] [2] [5] [4].