Did ice tear gas preschoolers
Executive summary
Multiple mainstream news outlets and local reporting document incidents in which federal immigration agents’ use of crowd-control chemical agents exposed young children — including an infant and preschool-age kids — to tear gas or similar irritants, with at least one 6‑month‑old taken to a hospital after breathing difficulties in Minneapolis [1] [2] [3]. Reporting from Chicago and videos from Minnesota show additional episodes where chemical agents were used around schools and residential blocks, creating credible grounds to say children have been tear‑gassed or affected by agents deployed by federal immigration enforcement [4] [5] [6].
1. What the Minneapolis reporting shows — a family trapped in tear gas
A cluster of reports from The New York Times, CNN, local TV and wire services describe a Jan. 2026 Minneapolis incident in which a family with six children said an ICE or other federal agent deployed tear gas or flash‑bangs near and — they say — under their van; multiple children were treated at hospitals and city officials reported an infant experienced breathing difficulties after tear gas in the area [1] [2] [3]. Journalists published accounts that a canister rolled under the vehicle and that parents administered CPR to an apparently non‑breathing 6‑month‑old before emergency crews arrived [1] [2] [7].
2. Broader pattern of children exposed in Minneapolis and elsewhere
This Minneapolis episode is presented by outlets as part of a pattern: Mother Jones and local reporting document previous occasions when federal agents’ crowd‑control tactics reached children at protests, near schools, and during raids, and Chicago reporting describes schools moving recess indoors after tear gas deployments linked to immigration enforcement [4] [5]. The Guardian and other outlets circulated video showing canisters tossed near locations where people shouted that a preschool stood nearby, reinforcing community claims that children were in harm’s way during these operations [6] [4].
3. Evidence available — eyewitnesses, video, medical response
The public record assembled by major outlets relies on consistent elements: parents’ firsthand accounts, 911 transcripts and incident reports cited by CNN and The New York Times, video circulating online, and hospital and city statements confirming children were evaluated for tear‑gas exposure [2] [1] [3]. Local TV, the AP and Global News independently reported the same family’s account that multiple children were treated and that a tear‑gas canister ended up under the family’s SUV [8] [9] [10].
4. Official statements, denials and disputed facts
Public authorities and federal agencies have offered mixed responses: in some instances city officials said tear gas had caused an infant to have breathing difficulties, while Department of Homeland Security or federal spokespeople have at times denied specific uses of tear gas or disputed characterizations of events, leaving aspects of intent and precise tactics contested [3] [4]. Reporting shows a gap between eyewitness/video evidence and official denials or limited acknowledgement, making some operational details — such as which unit deployed specific devices and why — still under investigation in several pieces [1] [6].
5. Health impacts documented by local reporting and specialists
Nonprofit and local health reporting outline the risks: tear gas and chemical irritants can cause respiratory distress, eye irritation and worse in infants and young children, and local news coverage cites hospital evaluation and treatment for multiple minors after exposure [11] [3] [7]. Multiple outlets reported that children experienced symptoms severe enough to prompt ambulance transport and hospital care, which supports the claim of tangible harm in these incidents [8] [12].
6. Conclusion — what can be said, and what remains unresolved
The collected reporting establishes that children — including preschool‑age and a 6‑month‑old infant — were caught in areas where federal agents deployed tear gas or similar crowd‑control devices and that at least one infant required hospital care after exposure, which justifies saying children were tear‑gassed in these episodes [1] [2] [3]. However, some operational details — which specific agency members deployed particular devices, whether every device was standard tear gas versus other chemical irritants, and full official accountability — remain contested or underreported in the pieces reviewed, so definitive attribution of intent and chain‑of‑command responsibility cannot be fully resolved from the available sources [6] [4].