Fact check: What are the guidelines for using zip ties during ICE detainments?

Executive Summary — What the record shows about zip ties and ICE detainments

The available reporting presents a direct conflict between DHS/ICE denials and eyewitness footage or witness accounts of agents using zip ties on adults and, in at least two reported incidents, children. The government statement that “ICE officers do not restrain minors” is explicit (June 2, 2025), while video and witness reports from Chicago and San Antonio in October and June 2025 portray agents leading detainees in zip ties and plainclothes officers detaining families with children, creating a factual dispute that requires additional documentary evidence to reconcile ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

1. Key claims extracted — Two competing narratives at odds

Reporting contains two clear, opposing claims: first, DHS/ICE deny that minors are restrained with zip ties and state that officers do not restrain children, as conveyed by Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin in a June 2, 2025, statement ^[1]. Second, witnesses and video from raids — notably in Chicago’s South Shore and an apartment courthouse detention in San Antonio — show people, including women and children, being led with zip ties, and observers describing family separations and plainclothes officers detaining families ^{[2] [3]}. Both claims are recent and specific, creating a narrow evidentiary contest.

2. Documentary evidence cited — Video versus official denial

The reporting that documents zip-tie use relies on cell phone video and eyewitness accounts captured during enforcement actions in October 2025 (Chicago) and earlier reporting in June 2025 (San Antonio context), which witness groups and community activists used to contest official accounts ^{[2] [3]}. The DHS denial on June 2, 2025, is an official declarative statement asserting policy and practice, not a case-level admission. These two forms of evidence — moving-image eyewitness material and an agency public statement — are both tangible but demand corroboration like chain-of-custody, timestamps, and match-to-operation specifics to determine whether they describe the same events or different practices ^[1].

3. What the sources say about formal guidelines — notable absences

None of the supplied materials present an internal ICE directive text authorizing or forbidding zip-tie use on particular populations. The June 2025 DHS response frames practice as a rule — “do not restrain minors” — yet does not cite a written, publicly released guideline in the available excerpts ^[1]. Independent reporting about detention practices focuses elsewhere, such as solitary confinement reports, and explicitly notes the absence of specific discussion about zip-tie rules in those pieces; this gap means public-facing operational guidance on restraint tools remains unpublished or unreferenced in the examined reporting ^{[4] [5] [6]}.

4. Timeline and places matter — June and October 2025 incidents compared

The June 2, 2025, DHS statement was a prompt response to allegations tied to San Antonio courthouse detentions and asserted a categorical practice on minors ^[1]. Subsequent coverage in early October 2025 documents a Chicago raid where video showed zip ties used on 37 arrestees and reportedly included women and children, prompting community criticism of apparent excessive force ^{[2] [3]}. The temporal sequence — official denial followed by later visual reporting of similar conduct — raises questions about whether the incidents reflect consistent national practice, isolated operational deviations, or misattribution across separate events.

5. Conflicting viewpoints and possible agendas — read the motivations

Community activists and immigrant-rights groups framing raids as excessive aim to highlight policy cruelty and secure political and legal scrutiny; their agenda emphasizes accountability and protection for vulnerable populations ^{[2] [3]}. DHS/ICE denials serve institutional interests in preserving perceived adherence to policy and public trust; their agenda is to limit reputational and legal exposure ^[1]. The presence of plainclothes officers in some accounts complicates attribution and can blur lines between federal enforcement and local/federal coordination. Each side’s posture shapes which facts are foregrounded and which evidentiary burdens they accept.

6. What remains unverified — essential missing documents and corroboration

Critical missing items include: the text of any ICE restraint policy addressing zip ties and minors; operational logs tying specific agents and techniques to named raids; unedited video with verifiable metadata; and independent third-party observer reports or body-worn camera footage. The solitary-confinement reporting underscores broader transparency deficits in ICE detention practices but does not fill the zip-tie directive gap ^{[4] [5] [6]}. Without these items, reconciling the government’s categorical denial with eyewitness video claims cannot be completed from the supplied materials.

7. Bottom line and next steps for verification — how to settle the record

To resolve the factual conflict, obtain: ^[7] ICE’s current written restraint policy and any memoranda dated around June–October 2025, ^[8] original video files with metadata from the Chicago and San Antonio incidents, ^[9] official after-action reports and arrest logs, and ^[10] independent observer or courtroom testimony. These documentary artifacts would establish whether zip ties were used, on whom, and under what authority. The supplied reporting signals a real dispute between official practice claims and eyewitness documentation, but the record in hand is incomplete and needs documentary corroboration before a definitive factual conclusion can be drawn ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.