Congress Moves to Ban ICE Use of Electric Shock Gloves

On September 3, Representatives Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania and Delia Ramirez of Illinois unveiled a bill that could put the brakes on a controversial new tool the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is set to buy for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The proposal, dubbed the No Shock Act, would forbid federal immigration agents—and any state or local officers working under the 287(g) partnership—from using electric “shock gloves” during any enforcement activity.

Those gloves, officially known as the CTG‑5 G.L.O.V.E. (Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter), are manufactured by Kentucky‑based Compliant Technologies. The device looks like an ordinary glove until a button is pressed, at which point it delivers a jolt of up to 380 volts directly to the wearer’s skin. The company markets it as a “conductive distraction and de‑escalation device,” arguing it can coax compliance without leaving permanent marks.

DHS has already earmarked roughly $16.7 million for 6,000 of the gloves, planning to issue them to personnel in Homeland Security Investigations and ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations divisions. Agency spokespeople say the tools are meant to give officers a non‑lethal option when dealing with resistant individuals, and they stress that officers receive training on proper use‑of‑force protocols.

But the very idea of an electrified glove has sparked alarm on Capitol Hill. Rep. Ramirez blasted the plan in a press release, calling the gloves “cruel weapons” that could “inflict sudden death.” She added that she has opened a congressional inquiry to force DHS to halt the purchase. Rep. Dean echoed those concerns, pointing to a litany of alleged ICE abuses—from wrongful arrests to inhumane detention conditions—and warning that the gloves would only add “more pain with zero accountability.”

The No Shock Act would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to ban the gloves for all federal immigration enforcement, and it would extend the prohibition to any local police agencies that partner with ICE under the 287(g) program. So far, the bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee but has not yet drawn bipartisan co‑sponsorship.

Opposition to the gloves isn’t limited to the House. In late August, Senator Catherine Cortez Masto and 15 fellow senators sent a letter urging the Trump administration to scrap the acquisition, citing potential violations of the Convention Against Torture and questioning the necessity of a no‑bid contract. Civil‑rights groups, including the ACLU, have also voiced alarm, arguing the devices could be used as a form of torture.

Supporters of less‑lethal technology counter that such tools give officers alternatives to firearms or pepper spray. Yet former ICE official Claire Trickler‑McNulty warned that wearing a shock glove could actually limit an officer’s ability to draw a firearm or employ other non‑lethal options, potentially putting the officer at greater risk.

Whether the No Shock Act gains enough traction to become law remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the debate over electric shock gloves has already highlighted deep divisions over how immigration enforcement should be carried out—and how far the government is willing to go in arming its agents.