US immigration officers will be given gloves that deliver powerful electric shocks to anyone resisting them
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is rolling out electric shock gloves to its officers, in a purchase that could cost up to $20 million (£14.8 million). The devices, called GLOVE (Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter), look like ordinary patrol gloves but deliver a painful shock when an officer presses a button and makes direct skin contact with someone. The move has drawn sharp criticism from Democratic politicians and civil rights advocates, coming amid existing scrutiny of ICE's tactics when detaining people.
The gloves can deliver up to 380 volts, roughly three times the output of a standard US power socket, and are marketed as "conductive distraction and de-escalation devices". They have previously been used by some local police forces and prisons, but a pending lawsuit alleges a 43-year-old man died in 2024 after being shocked 27 times with the gloves at a Kentucky jail, with an internal probe finding some shocks far exceeded the manufacturer's recommended 15-second limit. New York Attorney General Letitia James called the plan "outrageous" and warned of possible legal consequences for misuse, while the manufacturer itself warns against use on children, pregnant women, the elderly or disabled people. The Department of Homeland Security defended the equipment as necessary for officer safety without confirming details of the purchase.
- ICE to equip officers with electric shock "GLOVE" devices costing up to $20m
- Gloves deliver up to 380v; critics call the plan cruel and unnecessary
- Lawsuit alleges a man died after repeated shocks at a Kentucky jail
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that properly regulated electroshock gloves could give immigration officers a less-lethal option when someone is actively resisting, potentially avoiding punches, batons or firearms. They contend that close-contact tools may help officers quickly control dangerous situations while reducing injuries to staff, detainees and bystanders, provided use is limited, medically informed, recorded and subject to robust training and independent oversight.
The case against
Critics argue that a device designed to inflict electric shocks creates a serious risk of excessive force, particularly in immigration encounters where people may be frightened, confused or vulnerable rather than dangerous. They contend that its close-contact nature could make it easier to use coercively and difficult to scrutinise, and that deployment should not proceed without clear evidence of necessity, technical safety standards, strict rules, transparent reporting and meaningful accountability.