World

ICE Orders 6,000 Electric Shock Gloves Amid Backlash

ICE has finalized a $16.7 million contract to purchase electric shock gloves, igniting criticism from civil rights advocates and lawmakers.

28 August 2026Tagblick Newsdesk

AI-generatedWritten by an AI system, editorially responsible — how we work

Archive photo: ICE Orders 6,000 Electric Shock Gloves Amid Backlash — Archive photoPhoto: Blake Bolinger · Flickr · BY

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has awarded a no-bid contract worth $16.7 million for the purchase of 6,000 electric shock gloves, a tool the agency intends to use for managing resisting detainees. ICE officials argue that these gloves will serve as a means to enhance control during incidents involving detainees who are non-compliant.

Despite the contract being finalized, the decision has faced substantial backlash. Civil rights advocates and Democratic members of Congress have raised concerns regarding the responsible use of such equipment by ICE officers. They argue that the agency has a history of questionable practices and cannot be trusted to handle potentially dangerous tools effectively and humanely.

Critics emphasize that the introduction of electric shock gloves could escalate situations unnecessarily, potentially leading to severe consequences. The agency's past actions during immigration enforcement, particularly since former President Trump's administration, have already resulted in fatalities during ICE operations, raising alarms regarding officer conduct.

Rights groups continue to express their opposition, warning that these tools may contribute to an environment of abuse and further harm vulnerable populations. The controversy surrounding the gloves reflects broader tensions regarding ICE's enforcement practices and oversight of its operations.

This item was written by an AI system on the basis of the headlines and short teasers of the independently operating newsrooms named below. We disclose this under Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act). Before publication we check origin and verifiability — anything that appears in only one place is not published — as well as language, substance and legally sensitive content. No separate substantive review of each individual item by a natural person takes place; we therefore do not rely on the exemption in Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of the AI Act. Editorial responsibility for this publication rests with the person named in the imprint (§ 18 Abs. 2 MStV). Please report errors to [email protected] — we will correct or remove the item. Full reports are available from the sources listed.