Was the ICE agent involved in the toddler pepper spray incident disciplined?

1. What the video and witnesses show — a close, distressing encounter

Multiple outlets cite cellphone video and family testimony that a masked federal agent appeared to point and discharge a chemical irritant into a vehicle holding Rafael Veraza, his wife and their one‑year‑old daughter, leaving the child crying and the father briefly struggling to breathe ^{[3] [2] [5]}. Local pastors and bystanders described agents with guns drawn and chaotic scenes in the lot; those eyewitness accounts are central to the family’s version of events ^[6].

2. DHS and federal statements — a categorical denial about that parking lot

Department of Homeland Security officials publicly denied that crowd control or pepper spray was used in the Sam’s Club parking lot, saying Border Patrol agents entered the lot only after crowd control measures had been used elsewhere and describing agents as having faced gunfire and objects thrown during the broader Little Village enforcement action ^{[3] [2] [4]}. DHS posted on X and issued statements to outlets disputing a parking‑lot pepper‑spray deployment ^{[3] [7]}.

3. The operational context matters — ‘Operation Midway Blitz’ and clashes

Reporting places the incident inside a larger enforcement effort described in some pieces as Operation Midway Blitz, in which DHS says agents were attacked while carrying out immigration arrests in Little Village; outlets emphasize the day’s escalation, including alleged gunfire, bricks and vehicles used against agents ^{[4] [8]}. That context is invoked by DHS to explain force measures; community members and the affected family say they were neither participating in an attack nor protesting when they were sprayed ^{[2] [6]}.

4. Policy and legal background — recent limits on use of force noted in coverage

Several stories note a recent court action or injunction tightening how immigration agents may use crowd‑control tools, with reporting citing restrictions that require warnings and bar certain riot‑control weapons unless an immediate threat exists; those legal limits are part of local scrutiny of the agents’ conduct ^{[5] [8]}. The presence of that injunction is why critics and advocates frame this incident as particularly consequential in terms of compliance with legal limits ^[5].

5. Discipline: what the available reporting does — and does not — say

Across the articles provided, journalists report the family’s allegation, video evidence, DHS denials and the surrounding operational claims, but none of these pieces says that the specific agent involved was identified, investigated publicly, or disciplined. In short: available sources do not mention any disciplinary action having been taken against an agent in this incident ^{[3] [1] [2] [4] [5]}.

6. Conflicting narratives and what to watch next

The reporting presents two competing narratives: the family and local witnesses say agents sprayed an enclosed car with a toddler inside, while DHS maintains no pepper spray was used in that parking lot and emphasizes attacks on agents that morning ^{[3] [2] [7]}. Follow‑up items to watch for in further reporting are: internal DHS/CBP/ICE investigative findings, whether a formal complaint or lawsuit is filed, medical records or hospital reports about injuries, and any local or federal review that results in disciplinary steps — none of which are provided in the current articles ^{[1] [5]}.

Limitations and final note

This analysis uses only the supplied news items; they document the allegation, visual footage in circulation, DHS denials and the charged operational backdrop but do not report any personnel discipline. If you want, I can monitor for later developments (internal investigations, official disciplinary notices, or legal filings) and summarize them with source citations when they appear.