The children were simply going about their day. Some were walking to school in Broadview, Illinois; others were leaving a shopping center in Columbus, Ohio, or sitting in a stroller in Chicago. In Portland, Oregon, they were at an afternoon protest, surrounded by the mundane sights of dogs on leashes and elderly residents with walkers.
Then came the chemicals. Federal immigration agents deployed tear gas and pepper spray, sending billowing clouds of irritants into family cars, through bedroom windows, and across school zones. The results were immediate and visceral: an asthmatic teenager gasping for air, a young girl screaming that her skin was burning, and an infant who briefly stopped breathing.
A detailed investigation by ProPublica has identified 79 children across the United States who were harmed by these chemical munitions during the immigration crackdown led by the Trump administration. The findings suggest a pattern of excessive force and a systemic failure to protect non-combatants, particularly the most vulnerable, during federal operations.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has consistently defended the actions of its agents, attributing the harm to “agitators” and parents who allegedly placed their children in volatile situations. However, the investigation relies on body-camera footage, sworn testimony, and interviews with more than 40 victims and witnesses to paint a different picture—one where agents deployed “less-lethal” weapons with what some federal judges described as “deliberate indifference.”
The Biological Vulnerability of Children
Medical experts emphasize that “less-lethal” is a misnomer when applied to children. Because children breathe more rapidly than adults relative to their body weight, they inhale a higher concentration of contaminated air. This biological reality is why coal miners historically used canaries to detect toxic gases; the birds’ small size and rapid respiratory rates made them the first to succumb.
tear gas is heavier than air and tends to pool near the ground—exactly where children are positioned. Their narrower airways make the resulting inflammation and constriction more dangerous, often exacerbating pre-existing conditions like asthma.
The physical effects are often prolonged. In Broadview, Illinois, a mother reported that her 7-year-old daughter has suffered from chronic coughing and wheezing since exposure, requiring multiple urgent care visits. In Minneapolis, a 6-month-old infant required CPR and hospitalization after a tear gas canister rolled under a family minivan, triggering the airbags and trapping the children inside.
Judicial Rebuke and Limited Relief
The legality of these deployments has been fiercely contested in federal courts. In several instances, judges have excoriated Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for using force without justification or warning.
U.S. District Court Judge Sara Ellis wrote that the act of “tear gassing expectant mothers, children, and babies shocks the conscience.” Similarly, Judge Amy Baggio ruled that federal officers acted with “deliberate indifference,” noting that the gas made it nearly impossible for residents in targeted apartment complexes to eat, sleep, or breathe normally in their own homes.
Despite these rulings, the relief provided was often localized. Injunctions typically applied only to the specific areas mentioned in the lawsuits, leaving children in other communities exposed to the same tactics. Several appellate courts later vacated these restrictions, effectively restoring the agents’ ability to use chemical munitions in those regions.
A Gap in Training and Standards
The controversy has exposed a stark disparity between federal guidelines and the stricter policies adopted by many local police departments. While some cities have banned the indiscriminate use of chemical agents for crowd control, DHS policies remain broader and less restrictive.
| Agency/City | Chemical Munitions Policy |
|---|---|
| DHS / CBP | Guidelines suggest agents “should not use” agents on small children, but lacks strict prohibitions. |
| Minneapolis PD | Forbids chemical munitions for crowd control unless authorized by the police chief. |
| Portland PD | Requires officers to consider proximity to homes before deploying tear gas. |
| Akron PD | Prohibits the “indiscriminate” use of pepper spray to disperse crowds. |
Beyond policy, there is the issue of preparation. Reports from the DHS Inspector General in 2017 and 2021 found that agents frequently failed to complete required training on the use of force and the deployment of chemical weapons. Former DHS Inspector General John Roth described the number of children harmed as a “bright red flag” that should trigger a comprehensive review of how federal agents are trained.
The Push for Legislative Accountability
With judicial remedies proving limited, the focus has shifted to Congress. Democratic lawmakers have pushed for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act to establish national standards for use-of-force. More specifically, Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) has introduced a bill that would prohibit federal officers from carrying tear gas and pepper spray unless they are arresting someone attempting to enter the country illegally or have explicit supervisor approval.
Another proposal by Rep. Delia C. Ramirez (D-Ill.) would mandate that DHS publish reports every six months detailing every instance of force used and whether those actions complied with agency policy. The goal is to move the burden of documentation away from investigative journalists and onto the agency itself.
The Trump administration has resisted these measures, arguing that such restrictions would hamper the ability of immigration officers to perform their duties in volatile environments.
Disclaimer: This article contains information regarding the health effects of chemical irritants. This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Please consult a healthcare professional for medical concerns.
The next significant checkpoint for accountability may occur during upcoming budget hearings, where members of Congress, including Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.), have indicated they intend to question Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin directly on the lack of disciplinary action taken against officers involved in the harm of minors.
We want to hear from you. Do you believe federal law enforcement should be held to the same use-of-force standards as local police? Share your thoughts in the comments or share this story to keep the conversation going.
