The Minnesota Star Tribune’s questionable article

By Easton Martin | January 27, 2026

The Minnesota Star Tribune recently published a piece explaining how to identify the various chemical irritants used in crowd control. At a moment when tensions between protesters and law enforcement are already high, that kind of reporting raises some concerns about intentions.

There is a difference between covering public health risks in a general way and effectively offering a visual and descriptive guide to the tools being deployed on chaotic streets. Descriptions of how certain agents look when dispersed, how they behave in the air, and how to distinguish between delivery methods may seem educational on the surface. In practice, that information can function as a tactical reference for people actively engaged in confrontations with police. The fact is, these people are solving nothing in continuing to “resist” ICE. ICE is there to remove criminals, and impeding that work is just extending ICE’s stay in the city. 

News organizations have influence, whether they intend to or not. Publishing detailed breakdowns of law enforcement crowd control methods risks deepening conflict rather than informing the broader public. 

Media outlets often speak about “minimizing” harm. That principle should apply not only to the people being covered but also to the real world consequences of how information is presented.