The agency says the devices will give officers a new option for controlling people during arrests, moving difficult detainees, and handling disturbances outside detention centres.
The gloves work in two ways. In normal mode they function like regular protective gloves. When an officer activates the electrical function, the glove delivers a painful shock the moment it touches a person’s skin. ICE describes this as an intermediate force tool meant for situations where someone refuses orders, resists restraint, or becomes aggressive.
According to the procurement documents, officers could use the ICE shock gloves when detainees hide their hands, try to escape, or grow combative. The agency also sees a possible role during crowd-management events linked to detention facilities. Officials claim the technology may help avoid more severe force in some cases.
The purchase was made through a sole-source contract, meaning ICE did not hold a competitive bidding process. The deal is firm-fixed-price and covers the gloves, technical support, and related services over roughly six months.
The decision has drawn sharp criticism. Sixteen Democratic senators, led by Catherine Cortez Masto, sent a letter demanding answers about operational need, training rules, medical risks, and how misuse will be investigated. They asked whether every activation will be recorded and reviewed by supervisors.
Civil rights groups have raised similar concerns. They worry that a close-contact pain device could lead to excessive force, especially during immigration arrests and protests. Critics want clear rules on medical checks after use and a central record of every incident.
ICE insists the gloves will only be issued after officers complete approved training and follow strict policies. However, detailed public guidelines on when the electrical mode may be activated, how long contact can last, and what medical steps must follow have not yet been fully released.
The controversy arrives amid heightened immigration enforcement under the current administration. Supporters see the gloves as a practical middle option between verbal commands and stronger force. Opponents argue that spending $16.7 million on 6,000 electrically activated devices without open competition raises serious questions about necessity, accountability, and public safety.
