What organizations led investigations into the 2018 ICE pepper spray incident involving a child?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Multiple U.S. news outlets reported that a family — including a one‑year‑old — was pepper‑sprayed during an ICE/Border Patrol enforcement operation near a Sam’s Club in Cicero, Illinois; the family and local witnesses say Border Patrol or ICE agents sprayed them and other bystanders while the Department of Homeland Security and ICE publicly denied that pepper spray was deployed in the parking lot [1] [2] [3]. Major investigations or formal probes into this specific 2025 incident are not described in the set of available sources; reporting focuses on local news coverage, video shared on social media and official DHS/ICE statements disputing the family’s account [4] [5].
1. What the reporting identifies as the alleged actors and sites
Contemporary coverage repeatedly frames the alleged spray as carried out by federal immigration agents — cited interchangeably as ICE, Border Patrol or “federal agents” — during a larger enforcement operation in Chicago’s Little Village area and a nearby Sam’s Club parking lot in Cicero [1] [2] [6]. Local witnesses and the father, Rafael Veraza, describe a masked agent pointing a pepper‑spray device through the family’s open car window and spraying the child; video that circulated on social media is central to those accounts [1] [4].
2. Federal agencies’ public response and denials
The Department of Homeland Security issued public denials that pepper spray was deployed in the Sam’s Club parking lot and stated a policy position that its agents do not pepper‑spray children, framing the incident as not having occurred as described by the family [3] [5]. DHS spokespeople, including Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, told reporters that “there was no crowd control or pepper spray deployed in a Sam’s Club parking lot,” a direct contradiction of eyewitness and family statements [5].
3. Which news organizations covered the incident and how they framed it
National and local outlets documented the family’s account and circulated the video: NBC News described the father and one‑year‑old being pepper‑sprayed and linked the episode to broader clashes between agents and residents that day [1]. The Washington Post, Newsweek, ABC7 Chicago, Fox‑affiliated local stations and international outlets like NDTV and Times of India also reported the family’s account and the DHS denial, emphasizing both the footage and the official dispute [7] [4] [6] [2] [8] [9].
4. What the materials say about formal investigations
Available sources in this collection do not detail any specific internal DHS/ICE investigations, independent federal inquiries, U.S. Attorney or inspector‑general probes launched in direct response to this single parking‑lot spray allegation. Reporting concentrates on the viral video, eyewitness statements and DHS rebuttals rather than naming oversight bodies that have opened formal probes into this incident [4] [1] [3]. Therefore, claims about which organizations “led investigations” into this particular episode are not found in current reporting.
5. Context: prior and parallel complaints about use of force by ICE/BP
Several articles place the episode in a broader pattern of contested tactics and recent legal limits on force: NBC notes a recent preliminary injunction that restricted agents’ use of certain riot‑control weapons and required warnings before use — context that reporters used to question whether the alleged spray complied with policy [1]. Other coverage cites community complaints about aggressive enforcement operations in Chicago neighborhoods [5] [2].
6. Competing narratives and implications for accountability
Two clear, competing narratives dominate the record: the family, witnesses and circulating video say agents sprayed the car and child; DHS/ICE deny any deployment of pepper spray in that parking lot and assert agents do not spray children [1] [3] [5]. That split means accountability hinges on investigatory follow‑through: the reporting shows public allegations and denials but does not document independent verification, internal discipline, or the outcome of any probe [4] [7].
7. What to watch next and how to verify
Because current reporting centers on video and conflicting statements, authoritative confirmation would come from (a) an announced DHS/OIG or Department of Justice review; (b) local law enforcement or U.S. Attorney statements; or (c) release of body‑camera footage or agency internal logs — none of which are cited in the provided sources [1] [4]. Available sources do not mention any of those follow‑up steps having occurred [4] [3].
Limitations: my summary uses only the supplied articles; those sources report witnesses’ accounts, social video circulation and DHS denials but do not identify any named investigative body formally leading a probe into this specific pepper‑spray allegation [1] [3] [4].