Fact check: Have there been any incidents of chemical agent misuse by ICE in the past 5 years?

Executive Summary: Over the past five years there are multiple documented incidents in which federal immigration authorities and ICE-affiliated personnel used chemical agents, including tear gas, pepper spray, pepper balls, and “HC smoke,” at or near ICE facilities and during enforcement actions and protests. Reporting and investigations from 2024–2025 describe health harms to detainees, protestors, and community members and note increased procurement of such munitions by ICE in 2025, raising questions about policy, oversight, and medical impacts ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}.

1. What the record shows about repeated deployments near ICE facilities: Reporting from Portland and Tacoma documents multiple episodes where chemical munitions were deployed around ICE sites, including protests outside a Portland facility and use inside the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, where detainees reported severe respiratory symptoms and other health effects. Local officials and physicians described observable harms such as coughing, chest pain, and vision problems, and at least some clinicians linked menstrual irregularities among detained women to exposure events ^{[1] [2] [3]}. These accounts cover incidents documented across 2024–2025 and show recurrent patterns rather than isolated anomalies ^{[2] [3]}.

2. Newer allegations and political fallout in 2025: In 2025, members of Congress publicly challenged ICE over alleged unlawful use of chemical agents, including a June 2025 incident involving a Congressional delegation that prompted demands for accountability. Those congressional complaints coincide with reporting that ICE dramatically increased spending on weapons and chemical munitions in 2025, heightening scrutiny from advocacy groups and lawmakers about operational directives and transparency ^{[6] [4]}. The overlap of procurement increases and reported uses has been a focal point for critics arguing for policy reform and greater oversight ^{[4] [5]}.

3. Local impacts and municipal responses highlight community concern: City authorities and local leaders in places like Portland and Chicago responded to reported deployments with mitigation efforts and legal scrutiny, citing public-health and environmental consequences of munitions use near residential areas and civic spaces. Municipal updates note attempts to reduce contamination and limit civilian exposures, while judges in Chicago have questioned federal tactics and ordered measures such as body cameras, reflecting tension between local oversight and federal enforcement prerogatives ^{[3] [7]}. These reactions underscore the community-level policy implications beyond individual incidents ^{[3] [7]}.

4. Patterns of injury reported by detainees and residents: First-hand accounts collected by journalists and local health professionals describe acute respiratory distress, chest pain, coughing, visual irritation, and other symptoms consistent with exposure to chemical irritants. Detainees at Tacoma reported persistent chest pain and menstrual disturbances, while protestors and residents in Portland and Chicago reported breathing difficulties and eye symptoms, reinforcing a pattern of medically relevant outcomes that clinicians and reporters found credible enough to publicize ^{[1] [2] [8]}. These repeated symptom clusters increase confidence that chemical agents, not unrelated factors, caused many harms reported ^{[2] [8]}.

5. Procurement data and weaponization concerns escalate the debate: Investigations in October 2025 highlighted a 700% increase in ICE weapons spending, including purchases of chemical munitions, and linked those procurement trends to a contemporaneous rise in violent encounters involving such tools, according to watchdog reporting. Those analyses argue that increased acquisition capacity likely contributed to expanded operational use, a contention used by critics to call for restrictions and congressional oversight ^{[4] [5]}. Supporters of enforcement would note operational needs but the procurement spike fuels questions about intent and doctrine ^{[4] [5]}.

6. Legal and judicial scrutiny reflects institutional friction: Courts and judges have proactively questioned federal practices, ordering transparency measures like body cameras and demanding explanations for continued use of tear gas despite prior restrictions. In Chicago and elsewhere, legal actions and pending lawsuits were reported in late 2025, signaling institutional pushback and the possibility of litigation shaping future policy on chemical-agent deployment ^{[9] [7]}. Judicial attention often accelerates agency reviews, monitoring, or new constraints, making litigation a key avenue for accountability ^[7].

7. What remains unresolved and what to watch next: While reporting across multiple jurisdictions documents recurring use and harm, outstanding questions include internal ICE policies governing chemical-agent use, the chain-of-command approvals for deployments, medical follow-up for exposed detainees, and definitive causal links in each case. Future developments to monitor include formal investigative findings, results of lawsuits, congressional inquiries into 2025 procurement spikes, and any agency policy changes or administrative directives limiting munitions use ^{[2] [4]}. These follow-ons will determine whether current patterns prompt systemic reform or minor procedural adjustments ^{[3] [5]}.