Sunday, September 06, 2026

Chris Wright fumbles on three networks, Hegseth's scandals get covered on two

Chump has no energy plan.  That' been obvious for months now.  This morning on CBS' FACE THE NATION, the following exchange took place: 

MARGARET BRENNAN: Mr. Secretary, it is Labor Day, and Secretary Bessent had predicted we'd see $3 gas by September 20, depending on the Iran talks. Do you think we're going to be back at three bucks in the next two weeks?

CHRIS WRIGHT (U.S. Energy Secretary): Well, we've passed peak demand time with Labor Day tomorrow, the end of the summer driving season.

And the Trump administration a couple weeks ago rolled out a change in regulations that'll allow American refiners to produce more gasoline and diesel with their existing equipment. So, seeing demand likely go down in the next few weeks and supply going up, I think prices headed downward is - - is not an unreasonable expectation.

MARGARET BRENNAN: What about the diesel fuel that trucks and trains rely so heavily on? We saw that record high price of $5.89 a gallon this week. Is, for example, an export ban off the table?

SECRETARY CHRIS WRIGHT: You want to keep as much energy flowing as possible.

The diesel situation has been challenging because Russian refineries have suffered significant damage. Russia used to be a meaningful exporter of diesel. Today – today, they don't export any diesel, and, in fact, they've become a meaningful importer of gasoline.


So it's all Russia's fault -- just Russia, per Chris.  It's never Chump's fault -- not in the eyes of his bootlickers. On MEET THE PRESS (NBC) this morning, Kristen Welker reminded that it was just weeks ago that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent precited we'd be down to $3 a gallon by Labor Day.  Secretary of Energy Chris Wright appeared on CNN and ABC today as well and he never came off informed or convincing.  This morning on WEEKEND EDITION (NPR), Russia was noted -- as one of the problems:


AYESHA RASCOE, HOST:

The U.S. military said it struck three Iranian oil tankers yesterday and that it attacked the vessels after Iran fired ballistic missiles at a U.S. aircraft carrier and destroyer. This flare-up in fighting is having a big impact on the energy markets. Diesel fuel prices hit a record high this morning, up more than 50% since the start of the war. David Goldwyn served as an energy envoy for the State Department during the Obama administration and joins us now. Good morning, David.

DAVID GOLDWYN: Good morning, Ayesha. Good to be with you again.

RASCOE: Let's start with diesel. It's used by many businesses to run factories and equipment. Why are we seeing record prices right now?

GOLDWYN: Well, there are really three reasons, Ayesha. First is that the refineries use crude oil to make diesel. And so the price of crude is up, so that puts some upward pressure on it. But the real challenge is that we've lost almost 3 million barrels a day of refining capacity from the Persian Gulf. And it was a major refiner of the - what they call these middle distillates - jet fuel and diesel.

The other reason is that Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure - both its ports and its refining capacity - has led to a loss of almost 330,000 barrels a day in Russian exports of diesel. They were another big refiner. And so they have an export ban, and they're using that more for domestic consumption.

So you put those two things together, and you have a lot more countries competing for a much smaller supply of diesel. That's making the prices go up. And unlike crude, which you can get from a lot of places, you can't build another refinery really quickly. And so there's no way to replace that other than by the market forces of high prices.

RASCOE: So there's a lot of pressure on diesel right now. What will be the impact of those higher diesel prices on the wider economy?

GOLDWYN: Well, diesel has a higher inflationary impact on the economy than gasoline. It's kind of like the hidden fuel, but you use diesel for transportation. Seventy-five percent of transportation is diesel in the United States. So you're talking about trucks. You're talking about agricultural combines. You're talking about every package that Amazon delivers to your door and all the food which shows up in your grocery store. So as the price of diesel goes up, and jet fuel also for air travel, everything that gets moved around the country and virtually everything in agriculture costs more.

And so you're seeing diesel prices rise first. The fuel bill is going to come to these folks in October. And we're going to see it in the cost of virtually everything from food to toys to manufactured goods come December.

RASCOE: We're six months into this war, and there are these conflicting reports over how much oil is going through the Strait of Hormuz. You have the energy secretary, Chris Wright - said that more than 17 million barrels went through on Monday. That's almost pre-war levels. But independent ship-tracking firms say oil exports are a lot lower. How can you explain that discrepancy?

GOLDWYN: Well, the amount of traffic that goes through the strait changes from day to day. And what does get through is basically now trying to go in secret. So they turn off the devices, you know, sort of the transponders, which are normally used to track them. So now you're talking about satellites trying to see ships at night. So they're harder to see. They're not really advertising themselves. And there's a - you know, probably a little bit of a bias for the energy secretary to inflate a little bit how good things are so that people feel that oil prices might come down.

But as you point out, the TankerTrackers and others are showing that traffic is - you know, is quite minimal. And it depends on the day. Now that you've had this exchange of attacks over the weekend, with the U.S. attacking Iranian tankers and Iran striking back, shippers are going to be more reluctant to go through. So a week ago, you might have had a couple of attempts. This weekend, nobody's probably trying to get through the strait. So it's a lot of variation. But as we pointed out earlier, it's down at least by half compared to what it was before the war. And in terms of oil prices and gasoline prices, what really matters is refining.


 As for the impact of higher diesel prices, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED (NPR) addressed that this afternoon:


JOEL ROSE, HOST:

If you thought gas was expensive, diesel fuel just hit its highest price ever. The nationwide cost of diesel at the pump is now up to $5.89 per gallon nationwide, according to AAA. NPR's Stephan Bisaha pulled up to a gas station in central Alabama to find out how drivers are feeling.

STEPHAN BISAHA, BYLINE: Diesel is now about $1.75 more expensive per gallon than regular gas. So why bother buying a diesel vehicle?

LEROY BISHOP: For the pulling power, so I can pull my cars.

BISAHA: Leroy Bishop is a car guy filling up at a Buc-ee's. In fact, he bought this diesel GMC truck so he could better haul his other vehicles to car shows.

BISHOP: It performs better on the highway pulling those vehicles.

BISAHA: Basically, if you got to move something heavy, you use diesel - trailers, commercial trucks, big RVs. Since the war with Iran started and cut off a portion of the world's oil supply, diesel has gone up more than $2 a gallon. So Bishop's driving the truck less, but it hasn't cramped his lifestyle too much.

BISHOP: No. It ain't killing me, but it ain't fun.

BISAHA: For some people, diesel is not about fun. It's work.

JOE SCIARROTTA: Diesel gives me the power to pull that 26-foot food truck. It's heavy. It's a heavy trailer.

BISAHA: Chef Joe Sciarrotta owns the Hey Bebe food truck.

SCIARROTTA: So we do loaded potatoes. We do Cajun. We do Italian. We try to be unique.

BISAHA: Sciarrotta says between diesel for hauling and gas for the trailer's generator, he spends $32,000 in a typical year.

What would it be this year, then?

SCIARROTTA: Probably going to be close to about 44.

BISAHA: It's a big jump.

SCIARROTTA: It's a big jump. Yeah, no doubt.

BISAHA: So then are you making up for that by having to raise prices on the food truck?

SCIARROTTA: A lot of people are raising prices. You can only get so much for jambalaya.

BISAHA: So he's trying to keep prices steady. That's not an option for everyone at the pump.

MICHELLE CORTER: We literally, in a few weeks, are having a price increase going into effect because of the price of diesel affecting us right now.

BISAHA: Michelle Corter is in a Ford 450 hauling a trailer full of shutters. The company she works for makes them.

CORTER: We do standard square shutters. We do cutout doors. We do arches.

BISAHA: So I guess, is it fair to say that diesel is making shutters more expensive?

CORTER: Yes, 100%.

BISAHA: It is not just shutters. Diesel is used to ship everything from mattresses to bananas, meaning more expensive diesel will be paid for by just about everyone. Stephan Bisaha, NPR News, Leeds, Alabama.


 Turning to our failing Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.  Adam Entous and Greg Jaffe (NNEW YORK TIMES) report: 


Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth decided in early 2025 to spike Gen. Christopher T. Donahue’s nomination to be the top U.S. military officer in Europe.

Mr. Hegseth believed that President Trump wanted heads to roll for the deaths of 13 U.S. service members in a suicide bombing at the Kabul airport during the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. General Donahue was not responsible for security at the bombing site. But he was a top commander at the airport, and so Mr. Hegseth decided he needed to go.

It fell to Joe Kasper, Mr. Hegseth’s chief of staff, to try to convince him that he was wrong.

Mr. Kasper asked a senior Pentagon official to prepare a card with a half-dozen bullet points laying out the facts in General Donahue’s defense, current and former officials said. He took it with him in March of last year as he and Mr. Hegseth sped through traffic to the White House for a press event.

For those few minutes in the car, Mr. Kasper knew he would have his boss’s undivided attention.

Sirens were blaring. He handed Mr. Hegseth the card.

These were the facts of General Donahue’s three-decade career: He had seen more combat in his 20-plus deployments than just about any officer in the U.S. military. A star in the clandestine world of special forces, he had spent years in the shadows hunting terrorist leaders. And then as the world and warfare changed, he changed with it.

He had played a central role in the U.S. military’s efforts to help Ukraine hold off a much larger Russian force, a job that inspired his vision for a new kind of combat that married divebombing drones, robotics and artificial intelligence.

Now his fate lay in the hands of Mr. Hegseth, a former Fox News host who had two deployments as an Army officer to Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Hegseth had come to the Pentagon vowing to weed out the “small” and “feeble” generals who he believed had failed in those wars.

What played out in the 16 months after the car ride was a clash between Mr. Hegseth and General Donahue’s supporters, who viewed him as a generational talent.

That clash, and its outcome, was described to The New York Times by more than 40 people at the Pentagon, in Congress and around the world, nearly all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid retribution.


Hegseth is a failure, an utter failure.  He was the topic of two of the Sunday chat & chews.  ABC's THIS WEEK started their Hegseth segment with a thorough review of recent events for Hegseth:



MARTHA RADDATZ:  And as the Iran war drags on, this week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has faced mounting questions about his leadership. His army secretary resigned Monday. And that’s just the latest in a series of resignations and firings in Hegseth’s tumultuous tenure at the Pentagon.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RADDATZ (voice-over):  For Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, it was a week of unwelcome headlines and renewed calls for his ouster.

Republican Thom Tillis posting on X, “I have never witnessed more inept management of the brave men and women who serve our country. I urge the president to find a new leader at the Pentagon who will retain and empower our military talent, rather than diminish it.”

That followed the resignation of Army Secretary Dan Driscoll after repeated disagreements with Hegseth over the firing of multiple senior military officers, including the highly respected Army chief of staff, Randy George, and a slew of others.

REP. DON BACON, (R) NEBRASKA: He has not been a very good leader in many -- in many ways.

REP. MIKE LAWLER, (R) NEW YORK: It is critical, frankly, that Pete Hegseth come forth and talk about exactly why these changes have been made.

RADDATZ (voice over): Before resigning, Driscoll warned President Trump about the impact of Hegseth firing senior military leaders and blocking promotions as well, according to sources familiar with the matter.

VICE ADM. NANCY LACORE, FORMER CHIEF OF U.S. NAVY RESERVE (RET.) & (D) SOUTH CAROLINA CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: One year into that position, I was removed by Pete Hegseth. I was not given a reason.

RADDATZ (voice over): One Navy vice admiral Hegseth fired, Nancy Lacore.

LACORE: There was no notice other than, you know, being called down to a senior Navy four-star’s office on Friday afternoon and given the message. And that was it. An hour later, I was out of the Pentagon.

RADDATZ (voice over): Lacore, now running as a Democrat for the congressional seat currently held by Representative Nancy Mace.

LACORE: The abrupt end to my service really just wasn’t sitting well with me. And I, you know, service has been my entire life. And I just wanted to continue serving. Running for Congress was another way of serving our country.

RADDATZ (voice over): And it is not just those who have been ousted from the Pentagon who have concerns. “The Washington Post” reported that top military leaders have advised Hegseth that prolonging large scale operations against Iran was unsustainable and risked weakening our ability to confront threats elsewhere and at home. Leaks have infuriated Hegseth, but they keep coming, reportedly prompting him to polygraph Pentagon staff.

“The New York Times” reporting late Friday that some 50 members of the U.S. military’s joint staff have been polygraphed because of leaks about critical munitions shortages. Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell telling ABC News, the department “does not comment on internal personnel or investigative matters but takes all leaks of classified national security information extremely seriously and investigates accordingly.” Hegseth has repeatedly claimed the U.S. has won the war and depleted Iran’s missiles, while denying the U.S. has a problem.

PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: We had plenty when we needed it, and we have plenty now, and we’ll have plenty when we’ll need them in the future.

RADDATZ (voice over): Since the beginning of the war, Hegseth has rarely held press conferences, which are often combative.

HEGSETH: Excuse me. Why are you so rude? Just wait. I’m calling on people.

RADDATZ (voice over): And none since May 5th, more than four months ago. And never any explanation why he has taken the axe to so many senior officers.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

RADDATZ (on camera): And to talk about all of that, I’m joined now by former secretary of the Air Force under Joe Biden, Frank Kendall, who caused quite a stir this week with a “New York Times” op-ed titled “Military Officers Can’t Look Away From This Any Longer.”

It’s good to see you, sir.

And what you are talking about is Pete Hegseth’s Pentagon. You spent years at the Pentagon. Twenty years at the Pentagon in civilian jobs. About 11 years active duty in the Army. You know, politics has no place in the military, yet you say military officers should take action. What do you mean by that?

FRANK KENDALL III, FORMER AIR FORCE SECRETARY: I’ve always been incredibly impressed with the apolitical professionalism of our military. And I’ve served a total of 20 years, as you said, in the Pentagon. I’ve been through a number of transitions. Different parties come in. People just continue to do their jobs. They support whatever the policies are of the current party in power.

I’ve never seen an attempt to politicize our military like the one being conducted by Pete Hegseth. He’s fired 25, roughly, senior officers. He’s pulling people off of promotion lists. And that effect is rippling all the way down through the ranks. It’s causing people to be afraid and refuse -- and, in many cases, I think he’s not getting good advice because people are afraid to tell him things that he doesn’t want to hear. Long term serious damage is being done to our military.

But what the op-ed addressed was a tendency to try to partition the military off from responsibility for some of the decisions that the administration is making, that the military’s asked to carry out. There’s an obligation on our officers, particularly our senior officers, who interact directly with the senior political leadership to tell them the truth and to stand up to them when they want to do something which is morally wrong, unethical, or illegal. And we’re not -- I’m afraid they’re not doing that.

RADDATZ: The chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dan Caine, you addressed that in your piece. He has said, in front of Congress, we don’t make policy. And the military doesn’t make policy. But do you think he’s filling his -- fulfilling his obligation to give the president his best military advice?

KENDALL: I think he’s trying to keep the military apolitical, but he’s drawing the line in the wrong place. He made a comment in a speech about how his role was about telling the administration what they can do, not what they should do. That’s not accurate. It can be accurate in one sense technically, but it’s not accurate when you’re asked to do something that’s illegal, immoral, wrong, or even unconstitutional. The most egregious example is the strikes on drug boats. Just because the president's lawyer told you they were legal, you have to look at this on your own and make your own decision.

And as we approach the midterms, I'm worried that all of our guardrails are gone. We already saw once what President Trump is capable of doing when he doesn't like the results of an election. I think we're going to get an opportunity to see that again. And with the Justice Department in the hands it's in, with the State Department -- I'm sorry, with the National Security, Homeland Security Department in the hands of (INAUDIBLE), with a passive Congress and, of course, with Pete Hegseth in the Pentagon, the professionalism and the apolitical nature of our military, I think, is going to be tested in a very serious way.

RADDATZ: But let me go back to -- you're talking about the military not saying what they want to say, not saying what should happen. The "Washington Post" reported this week that top military leaders have warned Hegseth that prolonged operations against Iran are unsustainable. Isn't that exactly what you're saying should happen and that has happened?

KENDALL: It is, Martha, but that's on the narrower, purely military advice side of the equation. That's the sort of thing I would routinely expect as a matter of course our military people are talking about. What I don't understand, frankly, about the Iran war is what advice was given to the president that led him to start this conflict?

Aside from the fact that he never got approval from Congress to do it, the results of the initial strike have been about as one would have predicted. The illusion that the Iranian regime would suddenly fall and this would be a very short conflict was not one that's been held by anybody else until now.

RADDATZ: What -- look, officers are, and enlisted, are understandably, if they go forward and say something about the Pentagon or about Pete Hegseth, they're fearful. You saw, Driscoll, Dan Driscoll resigned this week. You have seen other senior military officers who have been fired or resigned not say anything publicly after that because they're -- they say there is a real fear there.

KENDALL: I'm in touch with a lot of people who are currently serving and have served recently. And that climate of fear, which I wrote about over a year ago, is very real and it's very debilitating. Very good people that I know are leaving because of the climate of fear and because of the things the military is being asked to do. I talked to someone who was involved in teaching ethics at the Air Force Academy the other day.

They're in a very difficult time explaining how the decisions being made by this administration conform to ethics as it's been taught to our officers.

RADDATZ: We have about 20 seconds. What would you do if you were Air Force secretary right now?

KENDALL: I couldn't serve this administration.

RADDATZ: OK. Thanks for joining us this morning. We appreciate your time.

KENDALL: Thank you.


CBS' FACE THE NATION also saw Hegseth as a story worth covering:


MARGARET BRENNAN: We're joined now by Colorado Democratic Congressman Jason Crow.

It's good to have you here in person.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON CROW (D-Colorado): Thank you. Thanks for having me.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, CBS is reporting that several dozen of the highest- ranking officials in the United States military were subjected to polygraph tests as part of the sweeping leak probe that Secretary Hegseth has ordered.

This includes combatant commanders. They're looking for who leaked the highly classified details about the nation's stockpiles of sophisticated weapons. This is extremely rare.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON CROW: Yes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Is it appropriate? Has Congress been told anything about the outcome?

REPRESENTATIVE JASON CROW: I haven't been briefed anything about this.

I'm a senior member of the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee. We haven't received any information. It's just been public reports. And, certainly, stopping leaks and protecting classified information is really important. And I would always support that.

The problem is, is the broader context that Pete Hegseth has created here. He has purged over 80 generals and admirals. The top 10 percent of the entire military chain of command has been purged. We are at a 25-year low for the number of women on the promotion list. And he's created an environment of fear. He's pushed out journalists.

He's pushed out media. This is part of his effort to create fear and to clamp down on information coming out of the Pentagon.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I mean, polygraph tests are part of routine cadence.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON CROW: Right.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But, from what I understand, it's the number, it's the rank of people here. It also seems to confirm the reporting about the problems with America's munitions shortages.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON CROW: Right.

MARGARET BRENNAN: What is the state of that?

REPRESENTATIVE JASON CROW: Well, because they don't – they don't want people to know. This is exactly the point. They don't want people to know what's actually happening.

That's why they fired the editor of "The Stars and Stripes," an independent newspaper that's been around since 1861, by the way, 1861. It was founded during the Civil War to be an independent media outlet for our service members, so that people would understand what they're going through.

This is the broader trend of them not wanting anybody, including members of Congress, to understand what's going on. Munitions have been depleted. The stockpiles are very low. Contrary to what Donald Trump wants us to believe. these types of precise munitions do not grow on trees. They take a long time to build up.

They started this war, the president started this war without a plan, without a strategy. I mean, I just heard your prior guest, Secretary Wright, talk about numbers and barrels and – and that's all tactical discussion, right? These are tactical decisions.

There's no strategy here. There's no off-ramp. There's no longer-term plan for how we get out of this and how we normalize the markets and how we drive down prices for Americans.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Speaking of the region, one of the other things we're looking at is the 50,000 personnel the U.S. keeps currently in the region.

The Navy's Fifth Fleet is headquartered in the country of Bahrain. The chief of naval operations held a town hall this past week. A sailor asked about, like, when can I go back and get all my gear?

And he said: "We're not getting back in there any time soon. I just want to be completely honest about that."

Should we understand that as saying the U.S. is withdrawing or drawing down personnel from – from the Gulf?

REPRESENTATIVE JASON CROW: I – I have for a long time thought that we need to draw down our forces generally in the Middle East. We need to get out of endless conflict in the Middle East.

Donald Trump campaigned on this, by the way. He knew that Americans are fed up with an endless cycle of conflict and the quagmires in the Middle East. Over the last…

MARGARET BRENNAN: But even from the Navy's Fifth Fleet? You want to pull back from that base?

REPRESENTATIVE JASON CROW: No, not from that particular base. I'm talking about overall.

You mentioned the 50,000 service members. We've had 50,000-plus service members in this region since 2001. That – that is – that is a high, high number. That is to support our endless conflicts in the region, right? We can move that number down. We can save money for taxpayers.

We can be stronger. We can be more nimble. But the broader point here is that Donald Trump has doubled down on 25 years of endless conflict that's cost us $3 trillion to $5 trillion, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands altered forever, right? We – we have been at war in the region for 25 years now.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Since 9/11.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON CROW: Since 9/11.

That's not OK. It's not inevitable. That does not need to happen, right? So, what is happening now is – is – is, again, a perpetuation of this conflict that has to stop.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And I understand Secretary Hegseth sent letters out to the Army this week extending troop deployments as well. And our Ellee Watson obtained some of those letters.

Let me ask you about a story we shared last week on Face the Nation. General Alizai, an Afghan commander who has asylum here in America, is under current government restrictions due to his nationality. He can't travel outside. He hasn't been able to bring his wife and three children to this country, even though he has asylum here.

What are vets like you trying to do to reunite those who fought alongside us in that Afghan war?

REPRESENTATIVE JASON CROW: There's a bipartisan group of us who are – who are fighting hard to expand the Special Immigrant Visa program to what it used to be before the Trump administration came in and dismantled, entirely dismantled that program, cut the visas, defunded all of the agencies and departments and personnel that were working to keep that promise.

We are pursuing temporary protective status and looking at trying to find ways to force a vote in the House and the Senate to move it forward, because we have a moral obligation to these folks who fought with us.

Me and others who came back after wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may not be here today if it weren't for those Iraqis and those Afghans who fought with us, served with us, were essential to our war effort. And, beyond a moral obligation, it's a national security imperative.

If we want to go someplace in the world and conduct operations, keep America safe, we always, without exception, work with local forces and people on the ground. Those folks will not be there for us, they will not work with us and keep American soldiers safe in the future if they don't think we'll have their back.


Let's wind down with this from Senator Adam Schiff:


Washington, D.C. – In case you missed it, U.S. Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla (both D-Calif.) joined Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Senate colleagues to call on the Trump Administration to abandon its reckless plan to outfit U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers with gloves that deliver painful electric shocks. Their letter also demands that ICE provide Congress with answers and documentation for over 30 questions about how these devices will be used, the protocol for using them, safety guardrails, accountability measures, and more.

On August 10, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a notice concerning ICE’s planned acquisition of the CTG-5 G.L.O.V.E., a glove designed to deliver a painful electric shock. The notice estimates the potential value of the acquisition between $10 million and $20 million. Despite opposition, on August 27, ICE moved forward with a $16.7 million no-bid contract for these gloves without providing Congress responses to questions. 

“We write to express deep concern about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) plans to spend up to $20 million on gloves that deliver electric shocks,” the Senators began. “…The blatant and tragic misuse of force in Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis, Houston, Maine, and other locations around the country raises significant skepticism about the agency’s professional capability to safely deploy a new tool that could be used to harm Americans without cause. Therefore, we urge ICE to cancel the contract and reconsider the purchase.”

“The proposed acquisition raises serious questions about necessity, proportionality, medical safety, training, accountability, and constitutional rights,” the Senators continued. “Those questions are particularly important given the significant public scrutiny surrounding ICE’s excessive use of force. A device capable of delivering an electrical shock through direct contact with an individual presents substantial risks if deployed during civil arrests – even more so if it is deployed without clear limits, appropriate training, and comprehensive oversight.”

“At a time when the American people have demanded de-escalation in immigration enforcement, it is not clear why existing tools and tactics are insufficient for the agency,” the Senators wrote. “In the past year, DHS has repeatedly spent millions of taxpayer dollars on purchases it ends up not using, including $464 million for airplanes, $700 million on warehouses, and more than $2.25 million for SUVs wrapped with ICE branding. Many of these ICE transactions, including the planned electric-shock glove purchase, are completed through no-bid contracts that circumvent the normal competitive procurement process without a sufficient rationale.”

“If ICE proceeds with purchasing $20 million worth of electric-shock gloves, Congress needs a clear understanding of the device’s safety and authorized uses,” the Senators concluded.

The letter was also signed by Senators Angus King (I-Maine), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).

The full text of the letter can be viewed here and below. 

Dear Acting Director Venturella, 

We write to express deep concern about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) plans to spend up to $20 million on gloves that deliver electric shocks. Over the past year, ICE personnel have been involved in numerous well-documented incidents of excessive force and civil rights violations. These incidents have shown the American people that ICE personnel are not adequately trained or accountable for their interactions with civilians. The blatant and tragic misuse of force in Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis, Houston, Maine, and other locations around the country raises significant skepticism about the agency’s professional capability to safely deploy a new tool that could be used to harm Americans without cause. Therefore, we urge ICE to cancel the contract and reconsider the purchase. 

On August 10, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a notice concerning ICE’s planned acquisition of the CTG-5 G.L.O.V.E., a glove designed to deliver a painful electric shock that is described as a “Conductive Distraction and De-escalation Device,” for use by both Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). The notice estimates the potential value of the acquisition between $10 million and $20 million. Congress has an obligation to ensure that federal law enforcement agencies have the resources necessary to perform their duties safely and effectively while ensuring that taxpayer dollars are being used for tools that are necessary, proportionate, and subject to meaningful safeguards. The proposed acquisition raises serious questions about necessity, proportionality, medical safety, training, accountability, and constitutional rights. Those questions are particularly important given the significant public scrutiny surrounding ICE’s excessive use of force. A device capable of delivering an electrical shock through direct contact with an individual presents substantial risks if deployed during civil arrests – even more so if it is deployed without clear limits, appropriate training, and comprehensive oversight. 

ICE personnel have access to pepper spray, Tasers, batons, and restraint techniques, not to mention deescalation strategies that are widely used by law enforcement throughout the country. At a time when the American people have demanded de-escalation in immigration enforcement, it is not clear why existing tools and tactics are insufficient for the agency. In the past year, DHS has repeatedly spent millions of taxpayer dollars on purchases it ends up not using, including $464 million for airplanes, $700 million on warehouses, and more than $2.25 million for SUVs wrapped with ICE branding. Many of these ICE transactions, including the planned electric shock glove purchase, are completed through no-bid contracts that circumvent the normal competitive procurement process without a sufficient rationale. This history raises concerns about wasteful spending and unethical contracting practices that could benefit individuals who have personal relationships with administration officials rather than those who can provide the best service at the lowest cost to the taxpayer. 

If ICE proceeds with purchasing $20 million worth of electric-shock gloves, Congress needs a clear understanding of the device’s safety and authorized uses. The manufacturer identifies restrictions on the device’s use, including limitations involving children, pregnant women, elderly or disabled individuals, and repeated or simultaneous use. The manufacturer also warns that use of the electric-shock glove may cause or contribute to death or serious injury, and that longer exposure increases that potential risk. If it proceeds with this contract, ICE must establish and make public clear, enforceable limits on when and against whom the electric-shock gloves may be used, especially given that ICE may not be able to immediately assess whether an individual is pregnant or disabled. Given that ICE is most frequently engaged in civil immigration enforcement rather than criminal arrests, the agency must carefully evaluate whether deployment of the electric-shock gloves in such situations is proportionate to the task. 

ICE must also establish and make public the training requirements the agency will put in place prior to and throughout any potential deployment of these gloves. Over the past year, ICE has undermined the public’s trust in the agency’s training standards by putting new personnel into operational situations who are not properly vetted or adequately trained. Training for ICE recruits was slashed before being extended again following significant backlash. Additionally, ICE has put new recruits in the field before even completing their background checks, with tragic consequences. The issuance of these electric-shock gloves to personnel in the field without sufficient training would be yet another failure of ICE in the eyes of the public.

ICE has continually failed to meet basic standards of transparency and accountability. The electric-shock gloves present a particular accountability challenge because the use of force may cause significant pain and internal injury without necessarily producing obvious visible injuries. If the electric-shock gloves are deployed, ICE must establish a robust system for documenting and reviewing every deployment and instance of use. ICE should not deploy the gloves without evidence that personnel understand and take seriously the device’s risks and that individuals subjected to its use can receive an appropriate medical response. ICE must also ensure robust internal procedures for investigating misuse of the device and all use-of-force tools provided to personnel, and effective consequences for those who are found to have abused them. 

In light of these many concerns, we request answers to the following questions and production of the documents identified below.

Necessity, Procurement, and Alternatives 

  1.  What specific operational capability does the G.L.O.V.E. provide that existing ICE defensive tactics and less-lethal tools—including pepper spray, Tasers, batons, and restraint techniques—do not? Please provide the operational analysis or other documentation supporting the acquisition. 
  2. How many electric-shock gloves does ICE intend to purchase, at what projected per-unit cost? How many personnel will be issued the device? 
  3. What alternatives did ICE consider before selecting the G.L.O.V.E.?
  4. Did ICE consult with other law enforcement agencies that use the device regarding effectiveness, injuries, complaints, misuse, training requirements, or other concerns? 
  5. Please provide the justification for the purchase of the G.L.O.V.E. via a non-competitive contract process. 

Safety and Appropriate Use 

  1. How does ICE classify the G.L.O.V.E. under DHS Use of Force Policy 044-05? Are the electric-shock gloves considered a de-escalation tactic under this policy? 
  2. In what specific circumstances will use of the electric-shock gloves be authorized? 
  3. Will use of the electric-shock gloves require supervisory authorization? 
  4. Which positions and units will carry the device? 
  5. What is the protocol for usage of the electric-shock gloves? Will ICE personnel be instructed to issue a warning before gloves are activated? 
  6. Will ICE expressly prohibit use of the electric-shock gloves as a routine compliance or punishment tool? 
  7. What restrictions will apply to vulnerable populations? 
  8. Will ICE prohibit the use of the electric-shock gloves against animals? 
  9. Will ICE prohibit the use of the electric-shock gloves in crowd-control situations? 
  10. What restrictions will govern the duration and repetition of electrical shocks? 
  11. Will the electric-shock gloves be authorized for use against U.S. citizens? 
  12. Will the electric-shock gloves be authorized for use in custodial settings? Will they be authorized for use in removal operations? 
  13. How will protocol for use differ between HSI and ERO? 

Testing, Medical Safety, and Training

  1. What testing has DHS or ICE conducted or reviewed concerning the safety and effectiveness of the electric-shock gloves? Please provide all manufacturer testing, independent testing, medical evaluations, risk assessments, and other relevant documentation.
  2. Will ICE conduct a limited pilot program before broad deployment? If so, provide the parameters, location, duration, and evaluation criteria for the pilot. 
  3. What medical contraindications or risks has ICE identified related to use of the electricshock gloves? 
  4. What training will be required before an officer or agent may carry or use the electricshock gloves? Please provide all existing and proposed training and written guidance concerning the G.L.O.V.E., including curricula, lesson plans, instructor materials, certification standards, policy directives, field guidance, and manufacturer training materials. 
  5. Will ICE require recurring certification and refresher training? Please provide the certification requirements, frequency of recertification, proficiency standards, and consequences for personnel who fail to maintain certification.

Accountability, Reporting, and Oversight 

  1. What is the required response when a person is injured or appears to be in medical distress following use of the electric-shock gloves? Please provide the applicable medical response protocols, including requirements for medical evaluation, documentation, notification of supervisors, and preservation of evidence.
  2. Will every activation or use of the electric-shock gloves against a person be reported as a use of force? 
  3. Will ICE require body-worn cameras to be activated and operational whenever the electric-shock gloves are deployed, regardless of whether the officers are in plainclothes? 
  4. Will every activation require written justification and supervisory review? Please identify who will review these incidents, what factors supervisors must consider, and what specific consequences will apply when personnel violate the applicable restrictions. 
  5. How will ICE track complaints and injuries? Will ICE maintain and publicly report data concerning internal and external complaints, injuries, improper uses, disciplinary actions, and uses of force involving the electric-shock gloves? 
  6. How will ICE evaluate, track, and report complaints of civil rights violations involving the use of the electric-shock gloves? 
  7. Will ICE conduct an independent audit of the program? 
  8. Please provide records reflecting any internal concerns or objections regarding the electric-shock gloves, including communications involving the Office of Tactical Programs and Firearms. 

We request that ICE provide written responses to the questions above and produce the requested documents no later than September 10, 2026. The American people have made it clear that ICE must de-escalate its immigration enforcement operations. ICE must refrain from deployment of the G.L.O.V.E. and instead invest in de-escalation tools, training, and accountability. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

###


The following sites updated;



at