ICE Protest: Portland Mayor Demands Agents Leave City

Published: 02 February 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

Portland’s mayor has called for ICE to leave the city after federal agents used teargas during a peaceful ICE protest, sparking widespread outrage. The focus on the ICE protest emerged immediately, as thousands gathered outside the South Waterfront facility, expressing anger over immigration enforcement practices. Witnesses described chaotic scenes, with families and children caught in clouds of gas, while agents deployed rubber bullets and pepper balls indiscriminately. Mayor Keith Wilson condemned the use of violence, emphasizing that most demonstrators posed no threat and had acted lawfully throughout the daytime march.

The protest, which took place on Saturday, highlighted the growing tension between local authorities and federal enforcement agencies. Erin Hoover Barnett, a former OregonLive reporter, recounted her proximity to the facility when agents launched gas canisters toward the crowd. “Parents were frantically tending to small children, while others struggled to navigate amid the chaos,” Barnett said. The demonstration, she added, was entirely peaceful until federal officers escalated the situation with aggressive tactics.

Wilson issued a strong statement calling for ICE personnel to resign and vacate the city. He declared that their actions during the ICE protest had replaced legitimacy with shame, noting that the use of chemical agents against civilians, including children, was unacceptable. Local police monitored the event but did not intervene aggressively, and the Portland fire bureau dispatched paramedics to care for those affected by exposure to teargas and pepper spray.

This ICE protest follows a series of similar demonstrations across the United States. In Minneapolis, federal intervention recently resulted in the deaths of two residents, Alex Pretti and Renee Good, intensifying public concern over the deployment of federal agents in civilian spaces. In Eugene, Oregon, protesters faced teargas when attempting to enter a federal building, with city authorities declaring a riot and ordering dispersal.

The national political response has further inflamed tensions. Former President Donald Trump posted on social media, asserting that local law enforcement should manage protests but insisted that ICE and Border Patrol maintain vigilance in protecting federal property. His statement emphasized punitive measures for anyone assaulting officers or property, framing enforcement as a matter of defending government institutions.

Portland’s mayor countered by introducing a fee on detention facilities that deploy chemical agents, signaling a municipal effort to hold federal authorities accountable. Wilson urged federal personnel to reconsider their actions, calling their use of force against children and peaceful demonstrators during the ICE protest “sickening” and morally indefensible.

Public reaction to the ICE protest has been immediate and widespread. Social media users shared images of children and elderly citizens fleeing clouds of gas, sparking renewed debate about federal overreach and the militarization of immigration enforcement. Advocacy groups have called for national oversight, highlighting the dangers posed by unregulated federal interventions in local communities.

Legal experts argue that these actions may violate constitutional protections, including the Fourth Amendment’s safeguards against excessive force. Civil rights organisations have demanded investigations into the events, particularly the targeting of minors and non-threatening participants. Portland’s decision to levy fines on chemical agent use in detention facilities represents a tangible attempt to enforce accountability, potentially setting a precedent for other municipalities facing similar challenges.

The ICE protest has reignited broader discussions about the role of federal agencies in local governance. Citizens and officials alike question the balance between national security mandates and the protection of civil liberties, underscoring the delicate interplay between federal authority and local autonomy. Political analysts note that Portland’s stance could influence policies in other cities, particularly as protests continue nationwide.

Eyewitness accounts from Saturday’s event describe a surreal atmosphere, with families using strollers and motorised carts to navigate the gas-filled streets. Barnett described the scene as terrifying, noting the confusion and panic among attendees who had not anticipated violence. Such accounts amplify concerns that federal actions are escalating rather than calming public unrest, contrary to official statements intended to justify aggressive measures.

International observers have taken note of the unfolding situation, with media outlets in Europe and Asia highlighting the ICE protest as indicative of growing civil resistance in the United States. The coverage underscores a pattern of confrontations between federal agents and local populations, particularly in regions where immigration enforcement has become a flashpoint.

Portland’s mayor insists that ICE personnel must answer for their conduct, warning that their actions are subject to legal and civic scrutiny. He emphasised that the use of chemical agents in a civilian context, especially against children, represents a moral and legal breach. Advocacy groups have praised the city’s stance, calling it a model for how municipalities can push back against federal overreach.

As Portland and other cities navigate these challenges, the tension between federal authority and local governance remains unresolved. Residents and officials alike are pressing for transparency, legal safeguards, and ethical enforcement practices, ensuring that public safety measures do not come at the expense of fundamental rights. The city’s proactive steps, including penalties for chemical agent use, represent a significant assertion of local oversight and community protection.

In conclusion, Portland’s confrontation with ICE underscores the delicate balance between enforcing national policies and protecting individual rights. The mayor’s demand for ICE to leave, coupled with tangible penalties on chemical agent use, marks a bold assertion of local governance. As public scrutiny intensifies, ICE faces mounting pressure to justify its actions, while communities nationwide watch closely, debating the appropriate limits of federal enforcement in civilian spaces.

Check our latest news