Is the green gas used in MN really poisonous and forbidden to be used by US military ?
Executive summary
Reporting does not substantiate a clear-cut claim that the so-called “green gas” used in Minnesota is categorically “poisonous” or that it is expressly “forbidden” to the U.S. military; local court orders have limited federal agents’ use of tear gas and similar crowd-control munitions against peaceful protesters, while other reporting notes there is no international ban on many of these chemical irritants and federal agents have signaled they intend to keep using them in some circumstances [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What the court actually ordered and why it matters
A federal judge in Minneapolis issued an injunction barring federal officers from detaining or using tear gas, pepper spray or other crowd-control munitions against peaceful demonstrators and observers who are not obstructing operations, a temporary legal restraint tied to an ACLU-backed lawsuit and recent clashes in the city [1] [2]; that order is a domestic, case-specific prohibition on conduct by federal agents in that operation, not an across-the-board scientific or international classification of the gas as “poisonous” [1] [2].
2. What reporters say about the chemicals’ legal status internationally
MinnPost’s coverage underscores that there is no blanket international legal prohibition on the chemical agents commonly described as “tear gas” or irritant sprays for law-enforcement crowd control, meaning the absence of an international ban does not preclude local or national limits on their use [3].
3. Conflicting signals from federal agents and enforcement leaders
Despite the judge’s order, U.S. Border Patrol leadership publicly vowed to continue using tear gas and less-lethal munitions in the ongoing Operation Metro Surge—demonstrating a gap between court-ordered limits in a particular venue and operational commitments from federal agencies charged with border and immigration enforcement [4].
4. How military involvement complicates the question of “forbidden”
National reporting shows U.S. military troops were put on standby amid the unrest and judicial orders, but that readiness relates to domestic deployment authority and the Insurrection Act rather than a statement about chemical-agent permissibility; the cited coverage frames the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus as constraints on using active-duty forces for civil policing, not as chemical-weapons law pronouncements [5] [2].
5. Beware of sensational or biased sources that conflate issues
Some outlets framed or amplified the story in ways that conflate judicial limits, agency tactics, and geopolitical rhetoric—for example, a Pravda item asserts a broad ban on tear gas and nonlethal ammunition by ICE as a fait accompli, language that mirrors parts of the local ruling but comes from a source known for partisan framing and should be read cautiously [6].
6. Bottom line and limits of available reporting
Based on the provided reporting: local federal court orders in Minnesota temporarily bar ICE and other federal officers from using tear gas and similar munitions against peaceful, non‑obstructing protesters in that enforcement operation [1] [2]; mainstream local reporting notes no international ban on these chemicals generally [3]; federal enforcement leaders have signaled continued use in other contexts [4]; none of the supplied sources establish that the “green gas” is pharmacologically or toxicologically classified as uniquely “poisonous” nor that U.S. military doctrine uniformly forbids its use under all circumstances—those technical and doctrinal determinations are not documented in the material provided and would require specialized toxicology reports and official DoD policy documents not present in these sources.