And was there any reporting that showed a baby being exposed to some sort of ICE deployed gas mid January 2026?
Executive summary
Reporting from multiple national and local outlets in mid‑January 2026 documents a Minneapolis family’s account that federal immigration agents deployed crowd‑control munitions — described as tear gas and flash‑bangs — near their vehicle on Jan. 14–16, and that a 6‑month‑old in the car experienced breathing difficulties and was taken to a hospital after the exposure [1] [2] [3]. Those accounts are corroborated by emergency responders’ involvement and city statements, while no provided source contains a public, independently verifiable admission from ICE that it intentionally aimed gas at the child inside the vehicle.
1. What the contemporaneous reporting documents
News organizations from The New York Times and CNN to local CBS and ABC reported the Jackson family’s description that flash‑bangs detonated and a tear‑gas canister rolled under or near their SUV during clashes around ICE operations, filling the vehicle and prompting bystanders and the mother to perform emergency care; several children, including a 6‑month‑old, were transported to hospital with breathing problems [1] [2] [3] [4]. Multiple outlets quote Destiny Jackson saying the infant “stopped breathing” and that she performed CPR until the baby revived, and they describe ambulances and fire department response at the scene [1] [5] [3].
2. How officials and first responders framed the incident
Local authorities and emergency services confirmed respiratory distress and hospital transport for children after crowd‑control munitions affected civilians during the protests; Minneapolis officials said initial reports linked tear gas to the infant’s breathing difficulties [2] [4]. Reporting also notes the presence of federal agents in the city amid heightened tensions after a separate shooting involving an ICE agent, and authorities described deployment of crowd‑control measures to disperse aggressive crowds [2] [4].
3. Corroboration, videos and differing narratives in the record
Video published by local outlets shows the aftermath and the mother carrying her infant away from a fogged SUV, and several outlets published family interviews describing a canister rolling under the vehicle and a subsequent explosion that deployed airbags [3] [6] [5]. Independent outlets and advocacy press alike repeated the family’s account; Mother Jones, Truthout and others placed the incident in a pattern of reported harms tied to federal chemical munitions [7] [8]. Those narratives coexist with federal statements characterizing the protest environment as threatening to officers, a framing offered by DHS in related coverage and mediated in broader reporting [4].
4. What the available reporting does not prove
While the reporting consistently records that the infant experienced breathing distress after tear gas was deployed nearby and that the family blames ICE agents, none of the provided sources contains an internal ICE admission, a released operational log, forensic testing of the munition linking it to a specific agency, or a final investigative finding conclusively attributing intent to an identified ICE officer; the evidence in these stories consists of family testimony, emergency‑medical response and city statements [1] [2] [3].
5. Alternative explanations and the stakes of attribution
Reporters and analysts included context suggesting crowd chaos and aggressive crowd control in a tense environment, which complicates pinpointing intent or exact trajectories of thrown canisters; federal officials argued officers faced assaults and fireworks from crowds, a stance that can serve to justify use of force even as critics argue munitions were used recklessly in residential spaces [4] [2]. The difference between documenting a baby exposed to gas and proving that a specific ICE agent intentionally targeted the family is material to legal and policy consequences, and the available coverage documents the exposure and medical harm without presenting definitive investigatory proof tying a named ICE agent to intentional targeting [1] [5].
6. Bottom line answer
Yes — multiple reputable outlets reported that a 6‑month‑old was exposed to tear gas or similar crowd‑control chemical agents during mid‑January 2026 clashes involving ICE in Minneapolis, that the infant had breathing difficulties and was hospitalized, and that the family asserts ICE deployed the munitions near their vehicle [1] [2] [3]. However, within the set of provided reporting there is no published, independently verified admission or forensic ruling in the public record definitively proving an ICE agent intentionally fired a munition into the family’s car; the claim rests on consistent family testimony, EMS response and city statements reported across outlets [1] [2] [4] [3].