Fact check: What are the protocols for ICE agents using tear gas during raids?

1. What reporters claim happened at Broadview — chaotic use of chemical agents and detentions

Contemporaneous local reporting describes ICE agents deploying tear gas, pepper-spray balls and non-lethal projectiles to clear crowds trying to block vans at the Broadview ICE holding facility, with officers twice forcefully dispersing roughly 100 protesters and detaining multiple people during the September 19 confrontation ^{[1] [2] [3]}. These accounts describe agents “hurled” agents into crowds and used pepper spray to disperse demonstrators who allegedly sought to obstruct ICE transport activities; one account notes an escalation when an individual returned a canister toward officers, which led to detentions ^{[1] [2]}. Local officials issued safety warnings to residents after further clashes later in the month ^[7].

2. Accountability and internal discipline cropped up in a separate courthouse incident

Reporting from September 26, 2025, documents a different episode in which an ICE law-enforcement officer shoved a woman inside a New York immigration courthouse, sparking outrage and administrative action: the officer was “relieved of his current duties” pending investigation, and DHS emphasized professional standards for ICE personnel ^{[4] [5] [6]}. These articles focus on disciplinary response after widely circulated video rather than on any published rulebook for deploying chemical agents, highlighting that visible enforcement actions can trigger rapid administrative steps even when formal use-of-force policy specifics are not disclosed in the reporting ^[6].

3. Public accounts describe tactics; official protocols are not included in coverage

Across the supplied articles, journalists detail tactics — gas canisters, pepper balls, rubber bullets — and operational outcomes like arrests and injuries, but none of these pieces quote or reproduce ICE’s formal written protocols governing tear gas use during raids or crowd-management ^{[2] [3]}. That absence is notable: the reporting concentrates on what happened on-site and immediate administrative responses, leaving a gap between observed tactics and published legal or agency standards that would explain when, where or how chemical agents are authorized during protests or enforcement operations ^{[1] [5]}.

4. Competing narratives: protesters’ peaceful claims vs. agency security justification

Protesters and political figures present a narrative of peaceful demonstration and escalation by ICE, while law-enforcement descriptions emphasize obstruction of operations and officer safety as grounds for dispersal; the supplied coverage captures both angles without adjudicating which is accurate ^{[1] [3]}. One account notes a congressional candidate claiming peaceful protest met “terrifying escalation,” whereas reporters also relay agents’ assertions about returned canisters and attempts to block vans, which officials frame as imperiling operations and justifying force ^{[1] [2]}. These contrasting frames suggest distinct institutional agendas: civil-rights and political actors emphasizing restraint and accountability, and security agencies emphasizing operational continuity and risk mitigation.

5. Timing and spread of reporting: concentrated late-September incidents

The incidents clustered in late September 2025: the Broadview protests and use-of-force reports were first reported on September 19 and followed up later in the month, while the New York courthouse shove was reported September 26 ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]}. This timeline shows rapid local reporting and administrative reactions within days, but also underlines that the supplied corpus is limited to immediate news coverage rather than policy analysis or official directive publication, leaving questions about longer-term investigations and possible policy changes unanswered in these sources ^[6].

6. What the coverage omits and why that matters for protocol questions

The supplied articles omit direct citations of ICE, DHS or Justice Department policy documents that would define legal thresholds for deploying tear gas in raids, cite training materials, or compare federal practice to state or municipal restrictions; this omission prevents confirmation of whether agents followed written protocols or exceeded them during the Broadview actions ^[2]. Without those documents or official statements quoted in the reporting, the public record in these pieces documents events and reactions but cannot settle whether observed deployments complied with formal use-of-force rules, an evidentiary gap that constrains accountability assessments ^[4].

7. Bottom line: facts established, policy questions unresolved — next steps for verification

The reporting establishes that ICE agents used chemical irritants and that at least one ICE officer faced administrative action for a separate use-of-force incident; however, the supplied coverage does not provide the official protocols that authorize or limit tear-gas use during raids or crowd events ^{[1] [3] [6]}. To move from observed tactics to a definitive judgment about protocol compliance, the missing documents would be ICE/DHS use-of-force directives, incident after-action reports, and any internal investigative findings — none of which appear in the provided sources, leaving legitimate public questions about policy, oversight, and accountability unresolved in this body of reporting ^{[1] [2]}.