Did ICE pepper-spray a baby in November 2025

1. What the footage and witnesses show

Cellphone and bystander video shared by journalists and on social platforms appears to depict a black pickup driving past a family’s vehicle and a person in the truck spraying a substance through an open window, after which the father and other occupants rub their eyes and cry; a clip filmed inside the family car and later scenes of the toddler crying and being wiped off were widely published by the Chicago Sun‑Times, NBC and others ^{[5] [1] [3]}.

2. The family’s account and medical effects reported

Rafael Veraza, the father, told reporters the spray hit him and his 1‑year‑old daughter as they were heading to shop; local outlets and the Associated Press quoted him saying he and family members struggled to breathe and that his daughter could not open her eyes immediately after the incident ^{[2] [1] [6]}.

3. Federal denials and official posture

The Department of Homeland Security issued categorical denials that crowd control or pepper spray was deployed in the Sam’s Club parking lot that day, with a DHS assistant secretary stating “there was no crowd control or pepper spray deployed in a Sam’s Club parking lot,” and DHS posted similar denials on social media ^{[4] [3]}. Multiple news outlets reported the agency’s denial alongside the family’s allegations ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Legal context and prior credibility issues

The incident occurred amid an intensified Border Patrol/ICE operation in Little Village and Cicero dubbed “Operation Midway Blitz,” and it came shortly after a federal judge had issued an injunction restricting agents’ use of riot‑control chemicals—an injunction referenced by journalists when noting that the use of sprays on vehicles or small children is constrained under policy and court order; courts and reporting have also spotlighted prior instances where agency officials’ credibility was questioned ^{[4] [5] [1]}.

5. How outlets and watchdogs framed the claim

Major outlets including The Guardian, Washington Post, NBC, ABC and AP reported the family’s claim and published the videos, often noting DHS’s denial and that federal authorities were reviewing the matter; investigative and advocacy outlets described the footage as “damning” while other pieces stressed that the agency’s public statement flatly rejected the allegation ^{[4] [7] [1] [8] [2] [3]}.

6. Where reporting leaves uncertainty

News reports consistently show three facts: the family alleges they were sprayed, video exists that appears to show a person spraying a substance toward the car, and DHS denies deploying pepper spray in that parking lot ^{[1] [3] [4]}. What the public reporting does not establish conclusively from independent forensic testing in the public record is (a) the identity and agency affiliation of the person doing the spraying, (b) the exact chemical composition of what was sprayed, and (c) the formal findings of any final federal investigation made public as of the last coverage cited here ^{[1] [9] [2]}.

7. Assessment — did ICE pepper‑spray a baby in November 2025?

Based on available reporting, credible news organizations documented the family’s allegation and published video that appears to show a chemical irritant sprayed into the car occupied by a one‑year‑old ^{[1] [5] [3]}. However, DHS/ICE publicly denied that pepper spray was used in the Sam’s Club parking lot, and the sources do not yet include a definitive, independently verified forensic or investigatory conclusion establishing that ICE agents pepper‑sprayed the baby; therefore the record supports that the family says it happened and video is consistent with that claim, but it stops short of a publicly confirmed finding that ICE definitively pepper‑sprayed the child ^{[4] [2] [1]}.