Fact check: What are the ICE protocols for using pepperballs on civilians?

1. What reporters and residents actually documented about pepperball use

Local and national reporting chronicles instances of pepperballs and tear gas deployed by federal officers near ICE facilities and at protest sites, with accounts emphasizing effects on residents, protesters, and journalists and linking deployments to crowd-control responses rather than individual arrests ^{[2] [3]}. These accounts underline public health concerns, describing respiratory and ocular injuries and community disruption, and they are paired with lawsuits alleging excessive brutality at ICE sites. The reporting does not, however, cite a formal ICE-issued operational manual or named policy that spells out when and how pepperballs may be used against civilians ^{[1] [3]}.

2. What official ICE/DHS policy materials in the record say and don’t say

A 2023 update to the Department Policy on Use of Force is referenced as the most relevant formal framework for federal agents’ use of force, and ICE directives are listed among department policies that could contain relevant guidance, but the sourced summaries do not extract a discrete clause about pepperballs specifically ^{[4] [5]}. These documents typically govern levels of force, proportionality, and accountability. The provided analyses indicate policymakers updated use-of-force principles in 2023, but the summaries stop short of showing an ICE-specific addendum authorizing or restricting pepperball deployment against civilians ^[4].

3. How advocates, plaintiffs, and local officials frame the issue

Advocacy groups and plaintiffs in lawsuits emphasize health harms and lack of transparency in deployments, framing pepperballs and chemical munitions as tools of excessive crowd control when used near civilian populations, and calling for accountability and clearer rules ^{[1] [3]}. Local reporting highlights residents’ experiences and community-level impacts. These perspectives push the narrative that, regardless of internal policy language, practice has involved significant civilian exposure and legal challenges. The sourced material documents allegations and litigation but does not establish the outcome or judicial interpretation of any ICE protocols cited in complaints ^[3].

4. Government claims about threats and context for force decisions

Homeland Security and ICE statements cited in the materials argue that rising assaults on officers and security concerns inform enforcement posture, and the DHS public communications attempt to rebut claims about misleading statistics on assaults ^{[6] [7]}. The analyses note disputes over the magnitude of claimed increases in assaults, with media fact checks finding different figures than those cited by officials. This contrast signals an administrative rationale for force options, while also revealing contested evidence used to justify operational choices; the materials do not link that rationale to a named pepperball-specific policy ^{[8] [7]}.

5. The gap between documented deployments and explicit written policy

Across the materials there is a clear gap between incident reporting and published operational directives: journalists and litigants show deployments and harms; policy summaries point toward use-of-force frameworks; but none of the provided items reproduces an ICE standard authorizing or proscribing pepperball use on civilians in specific terms ^{[2] [4] [5]}. This gap matters because determining lawfulness or appropriateness depends on explicit policy language, training, and post-incident accountability documents that the summaries do not provide. The evidentiary record here is therefore incomplete for a definitive legal reading.

6. What remains uncertain and what to demand from authorities

Key uncertainties remain about training, oversight, reporting requirements, and thresholds for escalation when pepperballs are used: the sourced materials indicate these are governed broadly under use-of-force policies but do not supply operational checklists, after-action reporting, or transparency metrics ^{[4] [5] [1]}. Stakeholders who seek clarity should request the specific ICE directives, any memoranda about less-lethal munitions, after-action reports, procurement records for pepperball systems, and legal analyses used by ICE or DHS to justify their deployment in civilian contexts ^{[3] [4]}.

7. How different parties may be shaping the record

The available materials show competing narratives with distinct agendas: local journalists and litigants emphasize harms and lack of transparency; ICE/DHS communications emphasize officer safety and disputed crime statistics; policy summaries point to broader use-of-force frameworks without extracting pepperball-specific clauses ^{[1] [6] [4]}. This mix means public understanding depends on document disclosure and independent review. To move from reporting to policy clarity, public release of the specific directives and adjudication of lawsuits would offer the factual basis needed to verify whether any internal ICE protocols explicitly authorize or constrain pepperball use against civilians ^{[3] [8]}.