Federal Agents’ Use of Chemical Weapons in LA: Doctrine vs. Reality
Protesters gathered at Gloria Molina Grand Park in downtown Los Angeles for a nationwide coordinated action challenging the Trump administration’s immigration operations. The demonstration, part of a “National Shutdown” calling for “no work, no school, and no shopping,” culminated in a march to the federal detention center. Demonstrators were met with tear gas and pepper spray deployed by federal agents.
The confrontation raised questions about the gap between official federal rules about when agents can use force and how those rules were applied during the protest. U.S. Representative Maxine Waters appeared at the front lines wearing protective riot gear, telling federal agents: “We don’t want you in Los Angeles, and we thought you had sense enough with the President to start getting out of Minneapolis, but I guess you have no sense and you don’t understand the power of the people.”
The Event and the Escalation
The nationwide “National Shutdown” had been organized by University of Minnesota student groups and immigrant rights organizations. It followed the fatal shooting of a U.S. citizen by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis: 37-year-old Renee Good on January 7. This death, coupled with repeated aggressive immigration raids by federal agents in the Twin Cities through “Operation Metro Surge,” had mobilized communities across the country.
By Friday afternoon, over one thousand demonstrators had assembled at Gloria Molina Grand Park. Hundreds more gathered at City Hall. The city had been the first major metropolitan area targeted when expanded ICE operations commenced in June 2025.
The afternoon gathering featured speakers, chants, and signs calling for ICE’s removal from the city. The demonstration remained largely peaceful throughout the afternoon and early evening hours. Families, students, faith leaders, and longtime activists marched together.
Chemical Weapons Deployment
As darkness fell and the crowd refused to disperse from the area around the federal detention center, the situation changed. The Los Angeles Police Department issued a dispersal order around 9:15 p.m. at Alameda Street between Aliso and Commercial streets. It declared the gathering illegal at 9:20 p.m.
Federal authorities then deployed tear gas on the crowd. Additional reports indicated use of pepper balls and other chemical irritants. LAPD reported observing “bottles, rocks and industrial size fireworks” being thrown or ignited by some people in the crowd. Federal authorities cited this as justification for the chemical weapons deployment.
By 10 p.m., the LAPD had declared a tactical alert, mobilizing additional police units to the area. According to official law enforcement accounts, officers stopped, gave tickets to, and let go 47 adults and three juveniles for failure to disperse. One arrest was made for felony evasion. One officer sustained a leg injury during the confrontation.
The chemical weapons use continued even after initial dispersal. Some participants reported continued tear gas exposure over extended periods.
The Organizers and the Movement
The “National Shutdown” framework had been announced by University of Minnesota student groups following the January 7 killing of Renee Good. Organizers explained their strategy: “The people of the Twin Cities have shown the way for the whole country—to stop ICE’s reign of terror, we need to SHUT IT DOWN.”
The coordination reflected existing infrastructure from the “ICE Out For Good” coalition. This included Indivisible, MoveOn Civic Action, the ACLU, Voto Latino, United We Dream, and numerous partner organizations. In anticipation of January 10 solidarity actions following Good’s death, the coalition had organized 1,000 events nationwide in less than 24 hours.
Maxine Waters at the Front Lines
U.S. Representative Maxine Waters appeared at the federal detention center wearing protective riot gear, including a mask. Her district includes portions of the city and has immigrant populations. Waters has repeatedly called for ICE’s abolition.
Her rhetoric included messaging to President Trump: “Donald Trump, you’re the most outrageous, the most terrible, the most deplorable human being that I’ve ever met. You have no compassion for anybody.”
When asked about violence during the confrontation, Waters stated: “We have to know that they have violent ICE, they have violent police, they have violent bodyguards, and we have to be careful. We must protest, we must not be intimidated, but we must be careful.”
Student Walkouts
Thousands walked out of schools across the area. The Los Angeles Unified School District reported 80 percent attendance on the day of the protest, compared with 90 percent in the preceding five days. This indicated approximately 10 percentage points lower attendance, which could suggest around 10 percent student participation in the shutdown if the additional absences were protest-related. Long Beach Unified School District reported approximately 3,000 students had left classes.
UCLA, USC, and Cal State Los Angeles also saw student walkouts.
Immediate and Long-Term Effects
The event didn’t halt or disrupt the federal detention center. The facility continued before, during, and after the protest. Scheduled detention hearings, processing, and transportation of detainees proceeded as planned.
However, the event did assemble a visible, diverse coalition opposing federal immigration enforcement. It created a public record of resistance at the facility involved in detention and deportation.
Media Coverage and Political Response
The event generated coverage from news outlets across the country. Major news organizations documented the federal chemical weapons use against demonstrators. Reporting focused on the tear gas deployment and the scale of the police and federal response.
Trump posted on Truth Social that federal government would “guard, and powerfully so, any and all Federal Buildings that are being attacked by these highly paid Lunatics, Agitators, and Insurrectionists.” He promised that violence against federal officers would face “equal, or more” consequences.
Mayor Karen Bass, speaking during the Friday protest, articulated a counterargument to violent escalation: “This hurts the city. That doesn’t impact the administration in any kind of way that’s going to bring about any type of change. What can happen, when the protest is violent, that’s what this administration wants to see happen because don’t be surprised if the military reenters our city.”
Public Opinion Shifts
A January 2026 poll found that 46 percent of Americans supported abolishing ICE, compared to 41 percent who opposed it.
The 2020 Portland Precedent
The use of tear gas and other chemical agents against the Los Angeles demonstrators occurred within a pattern of federal law enforcement response to domestic protests. The most directly comparable precedent is the federal law enforcement response to protests in Portland, Oregon during summer 2020, following the killing of George Floyd.
In Portland, federal law enforcement officers, deployed at the direction of the Trump administration, took action against protesters gathered outside the Mark Hatfield Federal Courthouse. The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General subsequently reported that 755 DHS officers participated in protecting federal buildings in Portland, at a cost exceeding $12 million.
The Portland Inspector General report revealed that federal officers were inadequately trained in riot control procedures despite that being their primary mission. The report documented that “not all officers completed required training; had the necessary equipment; and used consistent uniforms, devices, and operational tactics when responding to the events.” It also found that “Federal officers on the ground used thousands of munitions, often without targeting specific people, trying to control crowds at the protests.”
Chemical Weapons Exceeded Safe Levels
A study by Forensic Architecture analyzing tear gas use during a single June 2, 2020 Portland protest found that “the Portland Police Bureau used tear gas against civilian protesters in quantities which probably went way over federal safety limits of airborne CS concentration for human exposure.”
The study determined that “At every location sampled by our methodology, those safe levels were exceeded.” It estimated that approximately 2 kilograms of toxic chemicals were deposited in the Willamette River as a result of chemical dispersal on that single night.
Portland residents and buildings adjacent to federal sites subsequently filed lawsuits against the federal government for ongoing chemical weapons exposure.
Federal Use-of-Force Policy
Federal use-of-force policy, updated in February 2023, states that DHS law enforcement officers may use force, including less-lethal weapons, “only when no reasonably effective, safe and feasible alternative appears to exist.” Force must be “reasonable based on what was happening” when officers face the situation.
California Penal Code section 13652, effective January 1, 2026—the same month as the Los Angeles event—restricted law enforcement use of chemical agents. The statute prohibits “the use of tear gas and other chemical agents to disperse assemblies, protests, or demonstrations, except under specific situations.”
The law permits use only “when it’s reasonable to defend against a threat to life or serious bodily injury, or to stop a clearly dangerous and illegal situation.” The statute requires “de-escalation and alternatives to force be attempted first, when it makes sense.” It mandates “repeated audible warnings in appropriate languages, reasonable opportunities to disperse, and targeted use toward individuals engaged in violent acts.”
Medical Harms from Tear Gas Exposure
Medical research on tear gas exposure documents both immediate and long-term health effects. A study examining tear gas exposure found that “Exposure to CS gas was associated with significant ECG changes, indicating potential cardiopulmonary effects.”
Long-term respiratory effects from tear gas exposure are well-documented. Research examining subjects with history of frequent tear gas exposure found that people were more likely to have chest tightness and trouble breathing when exercising or on level ground. They also experienced winter morning cough, phlegm, and daily phlegm. Researchers concluded that “tear gas exposed subjects were found to be under the risk for chronic bronchitis.”
Where Policy and Practice Diverge
The Los Angeles federal chemical weapons deployment raises questions about how official use-of-force rules were or weren’t applied during the incident.
De-Escalation and Warnings
Federal policy and California state law both require de-escalation attempts and audible warnings before chemical weapons deployment. The California statute requires “repeated audible warnings in appropriate languages, reasonable opportunities to disperse, and targeted use toward individuals engaged in violent acts.”
Based on available reporting, LAPD issued a dispersal order at approximately 9:15 p.m., declared the gathering illegal at 9:20 p.m., and federal agents deployed tear gas shortly thereafter. However, whether multiple warnings in multiple languages were provided, the time given for compliance, and whether warnings were audible to all demonstrators—we don’t know from news reports.
Targeted Use vs. Broad Dispersal
Federal policy requires “targeted use toward individuals engaged in violent acts.” California law restricts chemical agents to those situations. It prohibits use “to enforce a curfew” or “in response to a verbal threat or noncompliance with a law enforcement directive.”
The LAPD attributed chemical weapons deployment to the presence of “bottles, rocks and industrial size fireworks.” However, witnesses and news accounts describe a demonstration that was “largely peaceful through the day.” Chemical weapons were deployed broadly against the crowd rather than targeted toward specific individuals engaged in property destruction.
Federal Property vs. Public Streets
A legal distinction involves whether chemical weapons were deployed on federal property—where federal authority is clearest—or on public streets. On public streets, local authority applies and First Amendment protections are stronger.
Reporting indicates that the confrontation occurred “on Alameda Street between Aliso and Commercial streets.” This appears to be public streets in downtown Los Angeles, not inside the federal detention center itself. If chemical weapons were deployed against demonstrators on public streets rather than federal property, the legal argument becomes weaker.
Strategic Options for Movement Impact
Based on historical precedent and social movement research, several strategic approaches could advance opponents’ stated objectives more than occasional street protests alone.
Escalate Legal Accountability Through Documentation
The 2020 Portland federal response generated subsequent federal civil rights lawsuits and congressional investigations. This happened partly through systematic documentation and public records requests. Opponents could establish a database similar to what Minnesota Governor Tim Walz called for. This would encourage citizens to film ICE activities and submit all footage to a centralized repository.
This material could then feed into coordinated Freedom of Information Act requests for body camera footage, communications records, and command decisions. When governments fail to comply with FOIA or destroy records, the non-compliance itself becomes evidence of problematic behavior worthy of litigation and media coverage.
Build Cross-Ideological Coalitions
The most successful civil liberties movements have united constituencies with different political views around shared beliefs in constitutional rights. The event mobilized progressive immigrants’ rights advocates. But it didn’t reach conservative civil libertarians or Republican-leaning communities who also have concerns about federal overreach and excessive police authority.
A reframed campaign emphasizing “Federal Overreach and Constitutional Rights” rather than “Immigration” could mobilize libertarian-leaning conservatives. It could also reach constitutional conservatives and civil liberties advocates across the political spectrum. These groups are concerned about federal power expansion beyond constitutional limits, militarization of domestic law enforcement, constitutional protection of protest rights, and due process violations.
Target Corporate Supply Chains
Target and other retailers have been identified as sites where ICE agents stage activities and utilize parking lots. Rather than consumer boycott calls—which have limited impact—opponents could pressure corporations’ supply chains. They could organize warehouse workers, transportation workers, and logistics workers to refuse to service facilities known to cooperate with ICE.
Opponents could target corporations providing detention facility services with union organizing and strike threats. This makes contracts lose money, not only look bad.
Establish Permanent Community Defense Infrastructure
Rather than reactive crisis response, opponents could establish permanent legal help networks and know-your-rights training as ongoing community infrastructure in high-ICE neighborhoods. This includes neighborhood legal clinics staffed by sympathetic attorneys, community rapid-response networks trained in non-violent de-escalation and documentation, bail funds maintained continuously, and mental health and trauma support for directly affected communities.
Demand Specific Legislative Changes
Instead of general calls to “abolish ICE,” opponents could identify specific changes that could pass and be enforced. They could focus organizing effort on those concrete wins. Examples include banning local police cooperation with ICE, requiring ICE to provide notice before detention facility visits, establishing independent oversight boards for detention center conditions, and mandating racial profiling investigations for ICE activities.
Small legal wins create new laws that restrict ICE even without federal support. Each legislative victory becomes a model other cities can adopt.
What Comes Next
Following the event, multiple LA-area high schools, including those in the San Fernando Valley, advertised planned walkouts for February 6. Organizers called on students to “protest against ICE & what they’re doing to our community.” These follow-up activities suggest the movement is planning to sustain organizing momentum rather than treating January 30 as a singular event.
The Trump administration’s response pattern suggests continued escalation. Following January 2026 confrontations, Trump stated that federal government would “guard, and powerfully so, any and all Federal Buildings.” He threatened that violence would face “equal, or more, consequence.”
Federal courts may play an increasing role in limiting chemical weapons use. A federal judge in Minnesota had issued an order in January 2026 prohibiting federal agents from retaliating against peaceful demonstrators or using pepper spray against them. However, an appeals court subsequently blocked that ruling, finding it too vague. Future litigation in California federal courts could yield different outcomes, given California state law restrictions on tear gas use.
Organizations like Mijente, a grassroots Latino organizing group, convened leadership to share “resistance strategies” across different regions. This suggests recognition that different communities face differently-structured patterns requiring strategies adapted to each region.
The federal use of chemical weapons against Los Angeles ICE protesters exposed a gap between official use-of-force rules and field practice. Federal policy requires de-escalation, warnings, and targeted use toward individuals engaged in violent acts. The documented deployment involved broadly dispersing chemical weapons against a largely peaceful crowd within minutes of a dispersal order on public streets.
The event demonstrated the capacity of immigrant rights movements to mobilize rapidly, unite diverse constituencies, and generate attention and political response. However, the event also highlighted the limitations of occasional protest: the detention center continued, enforcement proceeded unchanged, and the federal response included threats of further escalation rather than policy modification.
The historical parallel to 2020 Portland suggests that federal agents can sustain chemical weapons deployment against opposition for extended periods despite public criticism and legal challenges. The attention and multiple legal cases emerging from 2020 Portland haven’t yet produced federal policy changes three years later. This suggests that opponents seeking policy modification must develop strategies extending beyond visible street confrontations. They need sustained legal, legislative, supply-chain, and pressure mechanisms that have proven effective in historical movements facing similarly stubborn government opposition.
This article analyzes protest and activism tactics for educational purposes. We aim to contribute to effective and ethical efforts across the political spectrum, and we present diverse viewpoints and ideas without endorsement.