Noem Denies Use of Chemical Agents in Minnesota Protests, Then Backtracks
📅 January 19, 2026
✍️ Editor: Sudhir Choudhary, The Vagabond News
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem initially denied that federal immigration enforcement agents used chemical irritants against protesters in Minneapolis — only to later acknowledge that such measures were deployed under certain circumstances, fueling further controversy amid ongoing unrest in the city. Her statements and subsequent backtracking have intensified debates over federal tactics, civil liberties, and oversight of law enforcement operations during large-scale demonstrations.
The issue arises against the backdrop of Operation Metro Surge, a sweeping federal immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota that has drawn sustained protests after the fatal shooting of Renée Nicole Good by an ICE agent and allegations of aggressive conduct by federal officers.
Initial Denials and Public Statements
In early remarks to national media, Noem firmly denied claims from local officials and demonstrators that federal agents had employed chemical agents such as tear gas or pepper spray against protesters. She stated that federal personnel had acted within constitutional bounds and were not deploying chemical irritants — even as video clips and protester accounts circulating online suggested otherwise.
Noem and other federal officials framed the unrest primarily as a response to local leadership’s perceived failure to maintain public order, placing emphasis on the need to ensure the safety of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) personnel amid intense protests across Minneapolis.
Contradictions Surface
Within days of her denial, the public record began to show a different picture. Protesters and civil liberties advocates documented multiple incidents in which chemical irritants were used against crowds along protest routes, prompting legal challenges. These allegations were central to a federal judge’s recent injunction that barred DHS agents from using pepper spray, non-lethal munitions, or retaliatory force against peaceful demonstrators absent clear evidence of criminal activity — a ruling underscoring widespread concern over federal tactics.
In light of such reports and court findings, Noem later acknowledged that chemical agents had been deployed under specific circumstances — marking a significant backtrack from her earlier statements. While defending the actions as lawful and in line with training, she maintained that agents only resorted to such measures when they believed there was a threat to officer safety or the security of the operation.
Reactions from Protesters and Legal Advocates
Organizers and civil rights attorneys derided Noem’s reversal as emblematic of a pattern of misleading federal messaging amid escalating tensions on the streets of Minneapolis. Protesters have consistently alleged that agents’ responses have been disproportionate, targeting not only those actively demonstrating but also observers and bystanders. These reports played a key role in the federal lawsuit that led to the judge’s order restricting the use of chemical irritants and mass arrests of peaceful protesters.
The preliminary injunction explicitly bars agents from deploying pepper spray or other chemical agents against individuals engaged in lawful, peaceful protest activity — a directive stemming from allegations that such tactics were used indiscriminately. Beyond chemical agents, the ruling also prohibits retaliatory conduct and unwarranted detentions of non-violent demonstrators.
Civil liberties groups contend that Noem’s initial denial undermined public trust and obscured the true nature of federal operations, suggesting a broader lack of transparency at a moment of heightened constitutional stakes.
Federal and Local Government Positions
Noem and DHS officials have defended the overall operation as necessary for enforcing immigration laws and maintaining public safety. They argue that responses to protest activity are governed by training and legal standards and assert that peaceful demonstrators should remain free to express dissent without interference.
However, Minnesota officials — including Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey — have repeatedly condemned the federal presence and tactics, describing them as overreach and counterproductive to community safety. City leaders have maintained that the operation has exacerbated tensions, and have stressed that peaceful protest is a lawful expression of dissent even amid broader enforcement actions.
Broader Implications
Noem’s reversal has amplified longstanding debates over the appropriate use of force in managing protests, particularly when federal agencies are engaged. The episode highlights the challenges of balancing law enforcement objectives with the protection of constitutional rights, including the right to peaceful assembly.
The federal court’s restrictions on the use of chemical agents signal judiciary willingness to intervene when enforcement practices infringe upon civil liberties — a trend that may shape future confrontations between federal authorities and demonstrators nationwide.
For now, the controversy over chemical agents reflects deeper fissures in public trust and accountability at a time when civil liberties, federal authority, and local governance are all being tested on the streets of Minneapolis.
Source: Federal court rulings; public statements from DHS and Minnesota officials
Tags: Kristi Noem, Minnesota Protests, Operation Metro Surge, Civil Liberties, Chemical Agents, Federal Court
News by The Vagabond News
