Army Study Finds ICE Shock Gloves Cause Intense Pain
Left 50%
Center 50%
Right 0%
1 left · 1 center · 0 right
What happened
In October 2024, the U.S. Army tested G.L.O.V.E. electric-shock gloves (Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter) in mock cell-extraction, disturbance, and escort scenarios at the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. In August, Immigration and Customs Enforcement signed a $16.7 million contract to buy about 6,000 pairs from Compliant Technologies of Lexington, Kentucky; records obtained via FOIA show ICE had the Army findings before the purchase. Role-playing soldiers reported intense, immediate pain, stopped resisting within seconds, and remained fearful of further shocks; the study said the gloves increased efficiency in some tasks, boosted confidence among smaller or less-trained “guards,” and did not significantly change escort times. ICE has called the devices de-escalation tools; White House border czar Tom Homan said field use could still take time pending training and policy. Democratic senators led by Catherine Cortez Masto have asked ICE to drop or explain the buy; DHS has said officers need non-lethal options and are trained in de-escalation.
Sourcing check · Partly on the record · 3 articles
1 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 1 of 3
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: American Oversight
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 3 of 3
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: military study, Army study, contract records, army study
- Credits another outlet 0 of 3
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 1 of 3
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 7, 00:32 UTC by Mother Jones, naming its source. First document in the first report, from Mother Jones (military study).
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
BLINDSPOT.
Only left-leaning outlets are covering this story
— the other side's media is silent.
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Right-leaning outlets had not covered this as of publication. Left-leaning coverage reports that ICE bought thousands of electric-shock gloves after an Army study found they caused intense pain and left volunteers afraid of another jolt. Mother Jones and the Guardian disagree on how many pairs were ordered. A reader of the silent side would miss that the agency already knew those findings when it signed a $16.7 million contract.
Left-leaning coverage also splits on what the drill showed about control. One outlet notes the gloves did not significantly change the time needed to restrain a prisoner. The Guardian instead highlights that "inmate compliance was immediate."
Would a Fort Leavenworth prison drill on Army volunteers decide when ICE may shock a detainee or a protester?
Bottom line
Mother Jones reports that soldiers were frightened into obedience by the sight of the glove. Right-leaning outlets have not reported ICE's $16.7 million purchase after that Army study.
The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
- ICE was aware of the Army study before signing a $16.7 million contract
- A 43-year-old man died after allegedly being shocked 40 times with the gloves and a Taser in a Kentucky jail
- The Army study concluded the gloves should be deployed in military prisons
- Manufacturer Jeff Niklaus called the devices the safest, most humane deescalatory product probably ever to come along
- The manufacturer warns the gloves should not be used on children, pregnant women, or disabled people
- The gloves cost $2,495 apiece
The Left View
Mother Jones, The Guardian, and CBS News (drawing on AP and American Oversight records) report that the Army study found “intense pain,” immediate compliance, lingering discomfort in at least one case, and greater pain on wet or oily skin, and that ICE knew this before buying the gloves. They quote watchdog Chioma Chukwu saying the study shows pain and compliance, not safety, and note manufacturer language that the gloves should not be used on children, pregnant women, or disabled people, plus a Kentucky jail death lawsuit involving similar devices. Left-leaning coverage stresses “low optics” (harm without marks), ICE’s eagerness to deploy, and unanswered Senate questions. Center coverage also includes ICE/DHS framing: the gloves as distraction devices meant to protect officers, reduce lethal force, and meet “unprecedented” threats, and DHS’s claim that Democratic pushback endangers officers.
Our Take (balanced)
The story is substantive: it rests on a named 2024 Army study, FOIA-released ICE files, a documented ~$16.7 million contract, named officials (Homan, Venturella, Niklaus), and on-the-record critics. Established: ICE bought thousands of pairs after seeing findings of intense pain and rapid compliance; the study did not prove field safety for ICE arrest/detention/protest use; ICE and the maker still pitch the gloves as safer de-escalation. Contested or incomplete: whether they are “humane” or “safe,” how training and use-of-force rules will work, and what a separate Kentucky jail death implies for this model. No right-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch for ICE’s reply to the Senate letter, training and policy documents, delivery and first field use, and any independent medical or use-of-force review.
3 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.