ICE shock gloves are at the center of a fast-escalating controversy after federal officials revealed plans to equip immigration officers with wearable devices capable of delivering painful electric jolts on contact. The proposal, disclosed in a procurement notice published Monday, has drawn immediate objections from Democratic officials, civil liberties groups, and even a former head of the agency.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement intends to spend somewhere between 10 and 20 million dollars on what the notice calls conductive distraction and de-escalation devices. The scale of that spending suggests the agency wants them in the hands of most or all of its field personnel.

How the Device Actually Works

The product carries the acronym G.L.O.V.E., short for Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter. It is manufactured by Compliant Technologies LLC, whose founder declined to comment.

In appearance and ordinary use, it functions as a standard patrol glove. An officer presses a button to switch it into electrical mode. From that point, direct contact with a person’s skin delivers a voltage that produces pain, with the stated purpose of forcing compliance from someone actively resisting.

One notable difference from a Taser is that the gloves leave no burn marks or contact wounds. That characteristic is presented as an advantage in marketing terms, but critics point out that it also means misuse leaves less physical evidence behind.

Until now, the gloves have appeared far more often inside jails than in street policing. ICE operations increasingly involve public confrontations, including pulling people from vehicles, which is precisely why the shift in setting worries observers.

Sharp Reaction From State and Federal Officials

New York Attorney General Letitia James said at a Wednesday news conference that her office was outraged by the plan. She warned that officers who misuse the devices within New York could face both criminal and civil consequences.

Several members of Congress voiced similar objections. Representatives Pramila Jayapal, Maxwell Frost and Delia Ramirez each argued publicly that the agency does not need an additional weapon. Jayapal wrote that the devices would not make anyone safer and would simply hand ICE another dangerous tool that could be used against citizens and immigrants alike.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, issued a statement that avoided naming the product or explaining the rationale behind selecting it. The department said the agency continually evaluates what officers need in the field to carry out arrests and removals safely, and that decisions go through review intended to ensure any technology used aligns with applicable law enforcement policies and standards.

A Death and Pending Litigation

The devices are marketed as nonlethal and described as safe for cardiac function. A pending lawsuit complicates that picture.

The case involves a 43-year-old man who died in 2024 at a jail in Richmond, Kentucky. According to the complaint, he was shocked 27 separate times with the gloves and an additional 13 times with a Taser.

An internal review conducted by the Madison County Detention Center found that two of those glove applications lasted 45 seconds and 99 seconds respectively. The manufacturer recommends a maximum of 15 seconds.

Court documents cite the investigation’s finding that the conduct caused unnecessary pain and increased the likelihood of serious health complications.

A review by the Associated Press identified two additional lawsuits alleging injury from the devices. One involved a man with existing heart problems who was shocked at a Las Vegas trade show. Another came from a defendant who said he was shocked without justification in a courtroom and then laughed at. Both of those cases were dismissed.

Warnings in the Manufacturer’s Own Materials

Some of the strongest cautions come from the company itself.

The manufacturer advises against using the devices on:

Elderly individuals

Small children

Pregnant women

People with severe disabilities

That list overlaps significantly with populations ICE officers routinely encounter during enforcement operations.

The user manual also states the device should not be deployed in response to verbal defiance alone, nor used for punishment, torture, or horseplay. Those restrictions imply the manufacturer anticipated exactly the kinds of misuse critics are now raising.

Concerns From Inside the Field

John Sandweg, who served as acting director of ICE, said in a television interview that the potential for misuse is high, particularly against people who present no genuine threat.

Michael Mannheimer, a law professor at Northern Kentucky University who studies police use of force and federal enforcement practices, framed the risk in terms of escalation habits. He asked whether officers with the capability constantly at hand would reach for it more readily than they should, skipping lesser measures that might achieve compliance without inflicting pain.

That concern has an industry precedent. The company behind the Taser recently discontinued its drive-stun function, a comparable pain compliance feature that had been abused by some officers over the years.

The Procurement Details

According to the notice posted in a DHS database, the solicitation for the purchase could be issued as a no-bid contract as early as Friday. The resulting agreement would run through March 31, 2027.

No-bid arrangements typically draw additional scrutiny because they bypass competitive evaluation, which becomes more pointed when the product carries documented safety questions.

The Underlying Debate

Supporters of pain compliance tools argue they offer an intermediate option between physical grappling and firearms, potentially reducing serious injuries on both sides of an encounter.

Opponents counter that tools designed purely to inflict pain create their own incentives. When a device is easy to deploy and leaves no visible marks, oversight becomes harder and restraint depends almost entirely on individual officer judgment.

That disagreement is unlikely to be resolved before the contract moves forward, which is exactly why the reaction has been so immediate.