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.
Was the use of pepper spray on a toddler by ICE agents justified under policy?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows video and eyewitness accounts that a one‑year‑old and her family were pepper‑sprayed near a Sam’s Club parking lot during an ICE/Border Patrol operation in suburban Chicago, while the Department of Homeland Security has publicly denied pepper spray was used in that location [1] [2] [3]. Whether the action was “justified under policy” is contested: media accounts cite a recent court order and CBP/ICE use‑of‑force guidance that limit use of chemical irritants except to meet an immediate threat and say pepper spray “should not be used” on small children, but DHS denies the incident as described [4] [5] [1].
1. What the footage and witnesses say — a close, disturbing scene
Multiple outlets report that cellphone video and on‑the‑ground witnesses show a masked federal agent pointing a pepper‑spray device through an open car window and spraying a family — including a one‑year‑old — who were leaving a Sam’s Club parking lot; the family and a pastor who assisted them said all four occupants were coughing and “struggling to breathe” after exposure [1] [6] [2]. News organizations including the Chicago Sun‑Times, The Washington Post and The Guardian describe the same viral clips and the family’s press conference where the father, Rafael Veraza, recounted the spray striking his infant and others, and video shows the child crying and being comforted by a parent [1] [3] [2]. DHS publicly disputed the account, with an assistant secretary saying no pepper spray was deployed in that parking lot, setting up a factual dispute between eyewitness/video reporting and the agency’s statement [2].
2. The policies and the recent court order that frame “justification”
Reporting points to specific limits on riot control agents and CBP/ICE use‑of‑force guidance: a recent preliminary injunction and agency directives restrict the use of tear gas, pepper spray and other crowd‑control munitions unless such force is “objectively necessary” to prevent an “immediate threat,” and CBP guidance says pepper spray “should not be used” on small children, visibly pregnant people or drivers of motor vehicles [4] [5] [1]. News outlets note that a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction days before the incident that tightened rules on using chemical irritants against protesters or bystanders who do not pose an immediate threat, and civil‑rights advocates and reporting treat those limits as central to evaluating whether any deployment would be lawful or consistent with policy [5] [4].
3. Where agency denials and operational context complicate assessment
DHS and Border Patrol statements cited by reporting say agents faced gunfire and hostile crowds on nearby streets and that crowd control measures were used by field units, and DHS flatly denied pepper‑spraying children in the parking lot, asserting no pepper spray was used there [6] [7] [2]. Several accounts describe heightened tensions that day — with alleged projectiles, emergency response and agents’ claims of being targeted — which DHS and law‑enforcement sources say factored into operational choices; media coverage records both the family’s claim and the agency’s denial without a definitive on‑scene adjudication [4] [6]. Available sources do not mention any completed internal or independent investigation results that adjudicate whether policy was followed in this particular encounter.
4. How “justified under policy” is determined and where disputes typically arise
Policy justification, as described in reporting, turns on whether force was “objectively necessary” to prevent an immediate threat and whether warnings and escalation procedures were followed; the injunction and use‑of‑force rules referenced require constraints on using chemical agents on bystanders and vulnerable people [4] [5]. Journalistic accounts note the key evidentiary questions that would determine policy compliance here: who deployed the spray, the precise tactical situation at the spray location, whether the sprayed individuals posed a threat, and whether required warnings or lesser‑force options were considered — facts that reporting says remain disputed between the family’s video/witnesses and DHS’s statement [1] [2] [4].
5. Competing narratives, political stakes and advocacy responses
Coverage emphasizes sharp disagreement: civil‑rights advocates, local clergy and some elected officials framed the incident as an apparent violation of the injunction and guidance and as part of a broader pattern of aggressive enforcement tactics, while DHS framed its own conduct as lawful and denied the particular allegation in that location [5] [7] [8]. Media reports link the episode to broader controversy over recent federal enforcement operations in Chicago suburbs and note heightened public alarm when children appear affected, which magnifies scrutiny of policy compliance and fuels calls for independent review [8] [2].
6. Bottom line: unresolved facts, clear policy constraints, and the need for independent review
Available reporting makes two things clear: videos and witnesses claim pepper spray hit a one‑year‑old and family members, and judicial and agency rules in place at the time set explicit limits on using chemical irritants — including language that pepper spray “should not be used” on small children and that such weapons be used only to stop an “immediate threat” [1] [4] [5]. However, DHS’s denial and agency claims about a chaotic operational environment mean the question of whether the specific use was justified under policy remains unresolved in current reporting; independent or internal investigative findings would be required to decide whether policy was violated or the deployment met the narrow exceptions cited by the injunction and agency guidance [2] [4].