Was the green gas deployed in MN really hexachloroethane?

1. What the reporting actually documents about the Minneapolis deployments

Local and national coverage documents that federal immigration agents deployed chemical irritants and that residents and medics reported symptoms consistent with tear gas and other irritants, but those reports explicitly note uncertainty about the precise chemical composition of the agents used on the streets of Minneapolis ^{[2] [1] [6]}. MinnPost’s reporting emphasizes that it “is not exactly clear what chemicals law enforcement deployed,” and medical observers describe the kinds of respiratory and ocular effects people experienced without tying those effects to a named compound ^[1].

2. The term “green gas” is a moving target — it’s not a chemical name

“Green gas” appears across completely different domains with different meanings: in airsoft hobbyist circles it refers to a propane/silicone-oil blend used to power replica guns (not a toxic riot-control agent) ^[3], and in energy policy conversations it’s shorthand for renewable methane or biomethane used as a fuel ^{[4] [7]}. That semantic slipperiness means that hearing the phrase “green gas” in news accounts does not, by itself, identify a specific chemical compound such as hexachloroethane ^{[3] [4]}.

3. Historical uses of the label “green gas” point elsewhere, not to hexachloroethane

Open-source reporting and encyclopedic entries show that in prior international incidents the descriptor “green gas” has been used in accounts of adamsite (also called DM), a vomiting/sneeze agent whose crystalline material can appear green; human-rights reports described “green gas” and vomiting symptoms in Venezuela and linked those descriptions to adamsite-like effects ^[5]. That historical association underlines that when protesters or observers describe a colored or “green” cloud, they can be referring to different riot-control or chemical agents — again, not evidence that hexachloroethane was used ^[5].

4. What the sources do not say — and why that matters

None of the provided reporting or background sources state that hexachloroethane was identified on-scene or detected by testing after the Minneapolis deployments; the articles instead relay eyewitness descriptions, medical symptomatology, and policy questions about the use of irritants ^{[2] [1] [6]}. Because the available coverage is explicit about the absence of chemical identification, it is not possible on the basis of these sources to assert that hexachloroethane was the agent used.

5. Competing possibilities and who benefits from different framings

Given the ambiguity, several rival explanations remain plausible in public debate: that a conventional tear gas (common riot-control agents), pepper spray/oleoresin capsicum projectiles, adamsite-like compounds, or non-toxic but irritating pyrotechnic smoke were used — and each framing carries political weight. Activists and witnesses emphasize harm and demand accountability for chemical use ^[6], while federal statements about operations focus on enforcement goals; neither side has, in the cited reporting, produced independent chemical assays to settle the question ^{[2] [1]}. Claims that a specific compound like hexachloroethane was used would require chain-of-custody testing or authoritative disclosure not present in the current reporting.

6. Bottom line: the evidence in these sources

On the material provided, there is no documented identification of hexachloroethane as the “green gas” deployed in Minneapolis; reporting consistently notes uncertainty about the exact chemicals used, and the term “green gas” itself is ambiguous across contexts ^{[2] [1] [3] [4] [5]}. Any definitive claim that hexachloroethane was deployed goes beyond what these sources substantiate and would require forensic testing or an official confirmation that is not contained in the supplied material.