U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has announced a $16.7 million contract for 6,000 pairs of gloves capable of delivering electric shocks. The intended use is to exert control over detainees and protesters resisting ICE officers. This decision has faced strong opposition from civil rights advocates and Democratic members of Congress.
The contract is a no-bid agreement with Compliant Technologies LLC, a company based in Kentucky that manufactures these gloves. The deal includes the acquisition of gloves as well as support equipment and services over the following six months. Civil rights groups have highlighted ongoing concerns regarding ICE officers’ use of force during President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement initiatives.
Senator Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, along with 15 other Democratic senators, sent a letter urging ICE to reconsider the purchase of these gloves. They questioned ICE’s need and ability to use such devices without causing harm.
This controversy arose after ICE publicly announced plans to procure thousands of conductive distraction and de-escalation devices for their personnel. These gloves function as ordinary patrol gloves until activated by a button, delivering a painful shock when applied directly to an individual’s skin. Promoted as a compliance tool for resisting individuals, they have seen limited use in local jails and police departments.
According to the notice, ICE officers are expected to use these gloves in high-tension scenarios, including arrests, handling combative detainees, and during disturbances outside detention centers. The shocks are intended to maintain control, prevent aggression, and facilitate restraint without resorting to more severe force, such as firearms.
Despite the claim that the gloves will adhere to approved policies, training, and accountability standards, specifics were not provided. The senators’ letter expressed concerns over the risks posed by these devices without clear guidelines, appropriate training, and comprehensive oversight. They have demanded transparency regarding training and internal review processes to ensure proper use.
The Department of Homeland Security responded with a statement defending the purchase against critics, labeling the opposition from certain politicians as unsafe and detrimental to officers’ safety.