What federal statutes and regulations authorize ICE to use chemical agents against migrants?
Executive summary
Federal immigration agencies, including ICE and Border Patrol, have used chemical agents such as tear gas and other irritants during 2025 enforcement operations in U.S. cities; reporting documents frequent deployments and local judges have moved to limit that use in litigation [1] [2] [3]. Available sources describe agents’ actions and legal challenges but do not set out a specific federal statute or regulation that expressly authorizes ICE to deploy chemical agents against migrants; current reporting instead discusses practice, agency claims of necessity, and court responses (available sources do not mention a specific statutory authorization).
1. What the reporting actually documents: chemical agents in the field
Multiple national outlets and human-rights watchers recorded ICE, Border Patrol and other DHS immigration personnel deploying chemical irritants during enforcement operations and encounters with protesters and community members in 2025; images and video show canisters, agents spraying irritants, and people treated with water or milk afterward [1] [2] [4]. Journalists report that the use has become more frequent and visible in cities such as Chicago and that federal officials justify the tools as crowd-control measures in the face of alleged assaults or threats to officers [1] [4].
2. Agencies’ public rationale and internal practice, as reported
DHS and immigration agents have defended chemical-agent use as necessary to disperse violent protesters or to protect officers during risky raids; training materials and operational playbooks cited in coverage emphasize volunteer safety and recommend goggles or water to mitigate effects when confrontations occur [1] [2]. Reporting indicates the deployments often occur amid large-scale interior operations that aim to arrest migrants and sometimes attract protests and public scrutiny [5] [1].
3. Legal and oversight responses captured in the sources
Federal courts and oversight entities have begun to push back. At least one judge (Judge Sara Ellis, reporting indicates) issued an order prohibiting officers from using tear gas and other chemical agents against a crowd without first issuing two warnings after a complaint alleging a pattern of brutality [3]. Congressional Democratic oversight pages and civil-society trackers are compiling incidents of alleged misconduct to document patterns and support oversight [6].
4. What the sources do — and do not — say about statutory authority
The articles and agency pages in the provided reporting describe deployments, agency defenses, and judicial constraints, but they do not identify a particular federal statute or DHS/ICE regulation that expressly grants ICE authority to use chemical agents against migrants in enforcement settings. My review of the materials found descriptions of practice and policy disputes but no citation of a statutory grant or specific regulatory text authorizing such uses (available sources do not mention a specific statutory authorization).
5. How courts and advocates are reframing the question
Rather than centering on a named statute, litigation and advocacy documented in the reporting frame the legality of chemical-agent use under constitutional and administrative-law principles: plaintiffs allege excessive force, violations of civil liberties, and unsafe policing norms; judges have imposed procedural limits (e.g., advance warnings) in at least one jurisdiction as a remedy [3] [2]. Oversight efforts by House Democrats and civil-rights groups compile incident data to press for Congressional or judicial remedies instead of pointing to a single enabling statute [6].
6. Competing narratives and hidden agendas to note
Federal officials present chemical-agent deployments as necessary law-enforcement tools to protect officers and preserve operations [1]. Opponents — media outlets, clergy, protesters and civil-liberty advocates cited in litigation — describe a pattern of “extreme brutality” and targeted suppression of protests and filming [3] [2]. Political messaging from DHS and allied sources in the period emphasizes aggressive enforcement and high-volume arrest goals, an agenda that contextualizes operational choices and may incentivize robust crowd-control tactics [7] [8].
7. Limitations and next reporting steps
This compilation relies solely on the provided coverage, which documents deployments, court actions, and oversight but omits a clear citation of the statute or DHS regulation authorizing ICE to use chemical agents. To answer the original legal-question definitively would require consulting primary legal texts (U.S. Code, DHS/ICE regulations, internal use-of-force policies) and agency directives that are not included in the supplied sources (available sources do not mention the primary legal texts or regulatory citations).