What training do ICE agents receive on using tear gas?

1. What public reporting actually documents

News outlets have focused on incidents and legal oversight rather than a full training syllabus: Reuters reports a federal judge ordered body cameras and two warnings before use of tear gas after litigation brought by protesters and journalists ^[1]. Major outlets — Chicago Tribune, NBC Chicago, CNN, The Guardian and Reuters — detail multiple deployments of tear gas by ICE and Border Patrol across Chicago and suburbs and questions about consistency with agency policies ^{[4] [5] [6] [7] [8]}. Those stories emphasize operational conduct and community impact, not granular training modules ^{[4] [5] [6] [8] [7]}.

2. What the reporting says about agency policies and use‑of‑force framing

Several articles state ICE and CBP assert they are trained to use the “minimum amount of force necessary” and to prioritize public and officer safety; local reporting highlights allegations that field actions may violate those policies or a judge’s order ^{[5] [1]}. CNN and NBC Chicago describe internal tensions about accountability tools such as body cameras and whether previously established oversight mechanisms are being respected ^{[6] [5]}. Reuters notes the judge’s specific operational directives tied to protest situations ^[1].

3. Claims about insufficient or accelerated training

Reporting raises concerns that new hiring pushes and enforcement missions have strained conventional training. Axios reports that the agency has fast‑tracked some recruits and that officials worry recruits may lack full training in immigration law and constitutional standards, including use‑of‑force implications ^[2]. GPB’s coverage similarly probes how much training new ICE agents receive and interviews former enforcement executives who question readiness ^[3]. A former ICE director told WBUR there was “no training, there’s no experience” for officers placed in protest‑management roles — a blunt assertion attributed directly in that segment ^[9].

4. Legal and community checks shaping practice

Court rulings and local pushback are shaping how agents may be allowed to deploy crowd‑control tools. Reuters reported Judge Sara Ellis’s order requiring body cameras and warnings prior to tear-gas use in a suit brought by protesters, clergy and journalists ^[1]. Community groups and journalists have pursued litigation and public campaigns documenting alleged indiscriminate deployments ^{[7] [1]}. These interventions indicate training and policy are being contested in court and public forums, which in practice influences deployments even when training specifics remain unreported ^{[1] [7]}.

5. Gaps: what the current reporting does not tell us

Available sources do not disclose ICE’s specific classroom hours, doctrine, vendors, chemical-agent qualification standards, scenario drills, medical training for exposed civilians, or exact supervisory sign‑offs required before tear gas is used — those granular curricular details are not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting). No source here quotes ICE’s official training manual or a detailed training schedule specific to CS/OC agents; instead, the coverage centers on incidents, policy disputes, accelerated hiring, and legal constraints ^{[4] [2] [5] [6] [1] [3]}.

6. Competing perspectives to weigh

Officials and some former federal law‑enforcement executives defend agents by stressing operational risk and the need to equip officers for dangerous warrants or crowd threats; reporting notes recruitment emphasizes experienced candidates and operational preparedness ^{[10] [3]}. Conversely, civil‑society actors, community witnesses, journalists and a former ICE director portray inadequate protest‑management training, militarized tactics and excessive use of chemical agents ^{[7] [9] [4]}. Both lines of argument appear repeatedly in the coverage; the record shows disagreement over whether training gaps or policy violations are the central problem ^{[2] [9] [7]}.

7. What to look for next (and sources to request)

To move beyond current ambiguity, journalists and citizens should request: ICE’s formal training curricula, hours devoted to crowd‑control/chemical agents, after‑action reviews of notable incidents, medical/first‑aid protocols for exposure, and internal audits referenced in litigation. None of the provided articles publishes those documents; obtaining them would clarify whether shortfalls are procedural, instructional, or operational (not found in current reporting; see reporting on legal orders and training concerns ^{[1] [2] [3]}).