DHS Crowd Control Purchases Spark Debate Over Safety and Accountability

DHS Ramps Up Local Purchases of Crowd Control Weapons

In recent years, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has dramatically increased its procurement of so-called “less-lethal” crowd control munitions. According to USASpending.gov, the DHS has spent more than $14.3 million since 2008 on products from United Tactical Systems (UTS), a Lake Forest–based manufacturer best known for PepperBall projectiles and launchers. The federal government approved $1.7 million in purchases from UTS in just this year alone, signaling a growing reliance on these weapons for managing protests and unrest.

Pepper balls are paintball-like pellets loaded with synthetic PAVA powder—a potent irritant that can disperse up to 150 feet when fired. UTS markets their launchers as “not classified as firearms,” making them attractive for federal agencies seeking alternatives to conventional weapons. But watchdog groups argue these hybrid tools blur the line between non-lethal deterrence and potentially excessive force, combining blunt kinetic impact with chemical irritation.

Escalation at ICE Detention Centers Raises Concerns

Federal agents, particularly those working for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), have increasingly deployed pepper balls against protesters outside facilities like Broadview, Illinois. Reports from Block Club Chicago and eyewitness accounts detail a pattern of escalating force, with pepper balls often used as the first response—even before sunrise. On September 19, agents fired pepper balls before 6 AM, followed by tear gas and flash-bang grenades by mid-morning. Some incidents involved agents unholstering firearms during altercations, intensifying community fears.

The physical toll has been severe. A protester struck by a pepper ball reportedly bled for over an hour. Photographs shared on social media showed demonstrators covered in dozens of welts, some resembling deep bruises or golf-ball-sized lumps. Journalists covering the protests were not spared; two were hit while sheltering behind a van, and one suffered a bleeding nose. In another incident, a CBS News Chicago reporter driving past the facility was targeted, with pepper powder entering her car and causing her to vomit.

Local officials have voiced alarm. Broadview mayor Katrina Thompson penned a letter to DHS leadership, pleading for an end to what she described as a “siege” on her community. She cited not only the threat to free speech but the impact on police, firefighters, medics, and residents exposed to chemical agents. “Beleaguered Broadview residents are begging for relief,” she wrote, demanding immediate action.

Nationwide Use and Public Health Implications

ICE’s use of pepper balls is not confined to Illinois. Similar tactics have been observed in Portland, Denver, Spokane, and Los Angeles. In Portland, a school posted a sign pleading for federal agents to halt the “harm being inflicted on our neighbors, ecosystem, students and school” through deployment of chemical munitions like tear gas, “green gas,” and pepper balls.

Medical experts and rights organizations have raised the alarm about the health consequences of these weapons. The nonprofit Physicians for Human Rights, in partnership with international watchdog INCLO, published the “Lethal in Disguise 2” report, documenting thousands of serious injuries—including blindness, brain damage, internal bleeding, burns, permanent hearing loss, lung collapse, PTSD, cognitive decline, and even death—linked to crowd control munitions. The report highlights the scarcity of oversight and accountability for law enforcement’s use of such tools, noting that pepper balls remain among the least studied.

The Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits chemical irritants like pepper spray and tear gas in warfare, though law enforcement agencies are permitted their use for “domestic riot control” under strict conditions: adequate warning and reasonable escape routes. Critics argue these standards are rarely met in practice, especially when agents obscure their identities and badge numbers.

Oversight, Accountability, and Legal Challenges

The DHS’s relationship with UTS is longstanding, accounting for 98 percent of the company’s federal contracts. Annual spending averaged $450,000 until 2018, then surged above $1 million in subsequent years. This escalation mirrors intensifying confrontations at protest sites nationwide, raising questions about federal priorities and the future of public dissent.

Despite claims from UTS that their products are designed to “de-escalate confrontation from a distance,” responsibility for their use rests solely with the agencies. UTS representatives assert their training programs are rigorous, but refuse to disclose specifics, citing proprietary information. When asked whether contracts would be terminated for misuse, the company declined comment, instead referring inquiries to their legal team.

The DHS has not responded to requests for comment from the press, leaving many questions unanswered. Meanwhile, legal battles over DHS funding and practices continue, as seen in Illinois and 11 other states recently winning a temporary injunction against federal funding cuts (The Daily Line).

As tensions over law enforcement tactics simmer, communities and advocacy groups are demanding greater transparency, accountability, and adherence to international human rights standards. The debate over crowd control weapons—how they are used, regulated, and studied—shows no signs of fading.

In light of escalating federal purchases and repeated reports of harm, the story of DHS’s crowd control tactics is more than a procurement issue—it’s a test of how democracy balances security with civil rights. Until robust oversight and transparent standards are put in place, the health and freedoms of those in the line of fire remain at risk.