U.S. Army study finds ICE shock gloves cause intense pain and immediate compliance
The U.S. Army released a study from an October 2024 exercise at the military prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, showing that shock gloves bought by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) caused intense pain, immediate compliance and lasting apprehension in test subjects.
The gloves, which deliver an electric shock when an officer touches a subject’s skin, stopped resistance within seconds. Participants — described as several large‑statured men playing the role of combative prisoners — reported fatigue, soreness and “excessive apprehensiveness to being shocked again” after exposure.
After experiencing the effects of the GLOVE, ... participants stated just seeing the GLOVE was enough to make them want to comply.
The study’s authors concluded that the devices achieved their intended effect of compelling compliance through pain and fear. The findings were obtained by the watchdog group American Oversight, which also uncovered that ICE officials were aware of the results before signing a $16.7 million contract in August 2026 for 6,000 pairs of the gloves.
Records obtained by the watchdog show ICE’s procurement of the gloves proceeded despite the Army’s documentation of the severe physical response. The contract, signed in August 2026, earmarked a substantial sum for the non‑lethal crowd‑control technology.
The revelation arrived as state officials, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, moved to ban ICE’s use of shock gloves. The news was first reported by NBC News on Oct. 7, 2026, citing the Army study and the procurement records.
While ICE has defended the devices as a means to protect officers and maintain order, the Army’s internal assessment highlights the ethical and health concerns surrounding the technology. The study suggests that merely displaying the glove can trigger compliance, raising questions about its potential use in detention facilities and protest situations.
American Oversight plans to continue its review of the contract and the broader implications of deploying the shock‑inducing gloves, while advocacy groups call for greater transparency and stricter oversight of non‑lethal law‑enforcement tools.
