U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement plans to spend as much as $20 million on gloves capable of delivering painful electrical shocks, prompting a debate over whether the devices offer officers a safer method for controlling combative suspects or create another tool vulnerable to abuse during immigration enforcement.
The ICE electric shock gloves, officially known as Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter, or G.L.O.V.E., units, look and function as ordinary patrol gloves until an officer activates their electrical mode. The device must make direct contact with a person’s skin to administer the pain stimulus.
ICE Electric Shock Gloves Could Cost Up to $20 Million
A Department of Homeland Security procurement notice says ICE plans to purchase thousands of CTG-5 G.L.O.V.E. units for Homeland Security Investigations and Enforcement and Removal Operations personnel. The potential contract could cost between $10 million and $20 million and run through March 31, 2027.
DHS characterizes the product as a conductive distraction and de-escalation device. The agency says ICE officers receive de-escalation and continuing use-of-force training and that new technology is reviewed for compliance with law-enforcement standards.
The devices are made by Compliant Technologies LLC of Lexington, Kentucky. They have previously been used by some jails and police agencies, particularly in situations involving resistant inmates or suspects.
The size of the federal procurement suggests the technology could become substantially more common once ICE begins deploying it. AP reported that the purchase could represent the manufacturer’s largest order to date.
Gloves Work Through Direct Skin Contact
Unlike a traditional Taser that fires probes, the gloves require an officer to physically touch a person’s exposed skin. Once activated, the electrical current produces immediate pain intended to distract the person and cause compliance.
The manufacturer says officers must complete training before using the equipment and receive recertification every two years. Its guidance also places restrictions on how and when the gloves should be used.
The company warns against using the devices as punishment or in response merely to verbal defiance. Its manual also warns against use on children, pregnant women, elderly people and severely disabled individuals.
Those limitations make training and accountability central to the policy question. A tool can have legitimate uses in dangerous confrontations while still becoming abusive if officers deploy it simply because a person refuses to cooperate immediately.
Concealed Nature Creates Accountability Concerns
Civil-liberties groups are particularly concerned because an electrical shock delivered through a glove may not be obvious to nearby witnesses or cameras. Reuters quoted the ACLU warning that a concealed method of inflicting severe pain could reduce accountability during encounters.
That criticism carries additional weight because ICE enforcement has already generated intense national disputes over use of force. Two U.S. citizens were fatally shot by ICE agents in Minnesota earlier this year, and more than 50 people have died in ICE custody nationwide since Trump returned to office, according to agency figures cited by Reuters.
Those numbers do not establish that the gloves themselves will be abused. They do explain why the government should impose unusually clear reporting standards whenever an officer activates a device whose principal effect is pain.
Every activation should be documented, including the reason for use, duration, subject’s condition and whether medical care was required. Body-camera footage should also be preserved whenever practical.
Lawsuit Raises Questions About Excessive Use
A pending lawsuit involving a Kentucky jail alleges that electric-shock gloves contributed to the death of a 43-year-old man in 2024. AP reported that he was allegedly shocked 27 times with the gloves and an additional 13 times with a Taser.
An internal jail investigation found two glove applications lasted 45 seconds and 99 seconds, far exceeding the manufacturer’s recommended maximum of 15 seconds. The lawsuit’s allegations have not established that the gloves alone caused the man’s death, but the case illustrates how a supposedly nonlethal device can become dangerous when used outside prescribed limits.
AP also identified two other lawsuits alleging injuries involving the gloves, though both were dismissed. Those cases do not prove the technology is inherently unsafe, but they reinforce the importance of usage restrictions and independent review.
Any federal deployment should therefore be built around real accountability rather than marketing claims that a device is simply nonlethal. Virtually every force option can cause serious harm when misused.
Supporters See an Alternative to More Violent Force
There is also a legitimate case for giving officers intermediate force options. An agent confronting someone who is physically resisting may otherwise resort to strikes, multiple officers wrestling a person to the ground or a Taser.
John Peters of the Institute for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths told AP that the gloves can end resistance more quickly and may benefit smaller, older or physically weaker officers. He said the devices have been useful in specific jail and transport settings.
Reducing prolonged physical struggles can protect both officers and detainees. Many serious injuries in law-enforcement encounters occur during takedowns, falls and extended restraint rather than from a single controlled force application.
The question should therefore not be framed as whether ICE officers may ever use force. Immigration agents face genuinely dangerous individuals in some operations, and government has a responsibility to provide tools allowing lawful arrests to be completed safely.
Civil Immigration Enforcement Requires a High Standard
ICE also encounters many people who are not violent criminals. The agency’s responsibilities include civil immigration arrests, transportation and detention, meaning some subjects may be resisting removal or emotionally distressed without posing an immediate physical threat.
That distinction makes proportionality essential. A pain-compliance device should not become a shortcut for resolving ordinary verbal disagreement, hesitation or passive resistance.
The manufacturer’s own warnings support that principle. If the equipment is not supposed to be used for punishment, verbal belligerence or vulnerable populations, ICE policies should incorporate those restrictions explicitly rather than leaving them as optional manufacturer guidance.
Congress also has a legitimate oversight role because taxpayers could spend up to $20 million on the program. Lawmakers should obtain the procurement justification, testing records, training requirements and planned reporting procedures before widespread deployment.
Technology Should Increase Accountability, Not Reduce It
Law-enforcement technology often promises to reduce risk, but the effect depends on how agencies use it. Tasers, body cameras, facial recognition and drones have all created benefits alongside new civil-liberties concerns.
The same will be true of electric shock gloves. If they prevent more violent confrontations under strict rules, they could be a useful tool; if their concealability makes pain easier to administer without scrutiny, they could undermine public trust.
ICE should therefore publish its use-of-force policy for the devices before mass deployment and release regular statistics on activations and injuries. Transparency would protect the public while also protecting officers from unsupported accusations when force is justified.
The ICE electric shock gloves plan is not inherently proof of abusive enforcement, but a $20 million procurement of a device designed specifically to inflict pain deserves serious scrutiny. Government power is most defensible when officials can show exactly when force is authorized, how it is recorded and what consequences follow when those boundaries are crossed.
