SAN FRANCISCO — California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed into law a bill banning ICE and other law enforcement officials from wearing ski masks or other forms of extreme face coverings, a move supporters say is aimed at increasing transparency and public safety amid growing concerns about unidentifiable officers. The measure, Senate Bill 627, authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, takes effect Jan. 1, 2026.
A New York Times article about the bill outlines Newsom’s motivations for signing it into law, as well as opposing views.
“The impact of these policies all across this city, our state and nation are terrifying. It’s like a dystopian sci-fi movie — unmarked cars, people in masks, people quite literally disappearing,” the governor said. “This is an outrage, what we’ve allowed to happen in this country.”
The law bans “extreme” face coverings such as ski masks or neck gaiters. Protective equipment that does not obscure identity, including medical masks, respirators, eye protection or clear plastic face shields, is not prohibited, nor are limited exceptions for undercover officers.
The Department of Homeland Security opposed the bill. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said, “Comparing them to ‘secret police’ — likening them to the Gestapo — is despicable. Sanctuary politicians are trying to outlaw officers wearing masks to protect themselves from being doxed and targeted by … terrorist sympathizers.”
Numerous law enforcement agencies also spoke out against the bill, arguing that officers should be able to choose to cover their faces to protect themselves and their families from retaliation.
Brian R. Marvel, president of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, expressed outrage over the law, calling it a “troubling betrayal” and a “political stunt” that he said would harm recruitment and prompt current officers to leave the state.
“It’s important that the state take a stand,” Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional scholar and dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, said in a letter to the governor. Chemerinsky said that because the law does not impede the government’s ability to perform its duties, it is not unconstitutional.
In an article for The Sacramento Bee, Chemerinsky went into greater depth on the importance of the issue and what may occur if the bill is challenged in court.
“Ice agents have never worn masks before and that never posed a problem,” he wrote. “Safety of officers is a pretext to justify a practice that exists to intimidate. Drug cartels in other countries use masked assailants to kidnap people off the streets. ICE agents wearing masks are meant to evoke the terror of being kidnapped.”
Chemerinsky cited Idaho v. Horiuchi, a 2000 case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to dismiss Idaho’s prosecution of federal officers.
The court wrote: “In keeping with the constitutional allocation of powers between the federal government and the states, federal agents enjoy immunity from state criminal prosecution. That immunity has limits. When an agent acts in an objectively unreasonable manner, those limits are exceeded.”
As a result, Chemerinsky said there is uncertainty about whether California courts will uphold the law. He urged courts to conclude “that there is no reasonable need for ICE agents to be wearing masks other than in the exceptions provided within the bill.”
Regardless of how courts rule, Chemerinsky said the measure should be enacted as “a forceful declaration by this state’s elected representatives that the practice of ICE agents operating in masks and without identification is wrong and must stop.”
A WIRED article detailed the dangers posed by unidentifiable law enforcement officers. Citing an FBI bulletin released in September 2025, the report noted five cases in which crimes were committed by individuals impersonating ICE officers.
In one case on Aug. 7, three intruders entered a New York restaurant claiming to be ICE officers. They restrained a worker, placed a garbage bag over the worker’s head, and kicked and tied up a surrendering bystander before robbing an ATM.
In North Carolina, a man entered a woman’s motel room, showed a business card with a badge and threatened to deport her if she did not have sex with him. Police later apprehended the man.
In Florida, a woman approached her ex-boyfriend’s wife, opened her jacket to reveal a shirt that said ICE and told her she was there to “pick her up.” She drove the woman to an unknown apartment complex, where the woman later escaped.
In the bulletin, the FBI urged agencies to “ensure law enforcement personnel adequately identify themselves during operations and cooperate with individuals who request further verification.” The bulletin also encouraged agencies to verify legitimate operations with one another and to conduct outreach aimed at identifying ICE impersonators.
“The recent increased presence of armed, masked federal officers completely disrupts and erodes public trust in law enforcement,” Alycia Castillo of the Texas Civil Rights Project said in the WIRED article. “When masked federal agents conceal their identity and authority as a practice, anyone can don a mask and a gun and not be expected or required to verify their authority.”
Alongside the face mask ban, Newsom signed four other immigration-related bills into law. Two bar immigration officials from entering schools and hospitals without warrants. Another requires schools and higher education institutions to notify parents when immigration officials are on campus.
Before signing the bills, Newsom posted on X that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was “going to have a bad day today.” He later explained that “the laws we are advancing run in complete contrast to what she’s pushing,” referring to the department’s continued support of ICE officers concealing their identities.
In the same post on X, Newsom wrote, “You’re welcome, America.”
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
I am all for this. Face covering is wrong for law enforcement. And yes, it does bring out images of secret police. I understand the argument of officers being targeted, but we’re all in this society together, and that means we get to see who is enforcing the law or persecuting us.
Another thing that was wrong, Ku Klux Klan covering their faces with a hood. They could be one’s next door neighbor saying hi in the morning, and then lynching that same neighbor that night, and then wishing the surviving family condolences the next morning. Masks give undue power to oppressive forces, be they protestors, vigilantes or law enforcement.
Our society works when we see each other – all of us. I believe in the first amendment, because we should all be heard. But never anonymously. Which brings me back to the absolutely worst thing DG has ever said — that anti-Israel protestors on campus should be able to wear masks — I believe the reason was because they were ‘marginalized’. Well guess what, officers could indeed be doxed; and guess what other what – how do you know they are marginalized if you don’t know who they are? (Candice Owens would probably claim they were all Jews and it was a false flag protest :-| ). Jews could indeed be persecuted for their views, but you don’t see us wearing masks (except Edan On, who is a d*ck and deserved being arrested).
No one gets a free pass or special status. We are all in this together, we all must see each other, and we all must take the risks of speaking up in public if we choose to do so, or being law enforcement in the real world.
And that is why Gary May must be removed as chancellor. He has allowed a toxic atmosphere to flourish on campus, and his only goal is selfish self-preservation and keeping incidents out of the media so he isn’t bothered having to explain the anti-Jew stuff on campus to the media or the feds.
On May 2nd, 2025, fully-masked persons with a bullhorn stormed the Coffeehouse chanting, “We don’t want no two state . . . ” Funny, they try to convince us that they want two states, yet these masked protestors clearly do not. They want one state, “all the ’48”, and I’m pretty sure that one state they want ain’t called Israel.
On October 7th, 2025 a grouped of masked persons stood on the UCD Quad with a bullhorn shouting, “Al-Qassam you make us proud. Kill another hundred now.” That ‘another hundred’ that want killed – that would be Jews, and that’s a genocidal chant. And we can’t see the chanters behind their masks. [At least the young student on the bike who yelled “Death to Israel!” next to the Jewish student group memorializing those killed two years earlier in the Nagev had the courage not to cover his face.]
Black persons in the south couldn’t see the KKK behind their masks, and those swept up in ICE raids can’t see their captors, and we as Jews can’t see who’s chanting for our death. And Chancellor May just doesn’t want all the open Jew hatred to get out to the news media – and so far it hasn’t – and the news media ain’t helping neither. And DG thinks because ‘they’ are ‘marginalized’ they get to wear masks. No bias there, no assumptions there, no complete lack of understanding of Jewish history or the Jewish experience. I didn’t say the ‘lived experience’, because repeatedly that experience has ended in death.
I’m all for freedom of speech, even genocidal speech. I’m all for criticism of Israel — and Hamas. I’m all for hate speech being free speech — because different political ideologies will have different ideas of the direction and definition of hate. I’m all for police having their faces showing so they can be filmed, and identified. We all have to have the same basic rule — when we speak, we can say whatever we want (except an immediate threat to life or body) — AND we are unmasked and can be identified.
And I am speaking now, without a mask, in my real name, and I say “Board of Regents, Make Us Proud, Fire Gary May Right Now!”
Don’t forget Antifa and Transtifa. They should go unmasked too.
Not forgetting anyone. I’m talking about right to left, up to down, power to powerless, San Francisco to Boston, unicorn to rhino.
I disagree with Alan’s comments regarding citizens (at least), since I suspect that “requiring” people to not wear masks violates the Constitution (perhaps for good reason). Plus, there were medical reasons to wear masks (at least until recently).
I don’t particularly like it when groups like Antifa mask themselves, but maybe it wouldn’t be an issue if events where they’re likely to appear had sufficient law enforcement in the first place.
I might choose to wear a full gorilla mask at all times, especially if traffic cameras ever require facial identification. Either that, or a full-fledged donkey costume.
Regarding law enforcement, it seems to me that a large identification number somewhere on their uniform should suffice – something that would be visible in videos.
” . . . regarding citizens (at least)”
How do you know if they are citizens or who they are at all if you can’t identify them?
” . . . since I suspect that “requiring” people to not wear masks violates the Constitution”
I’ve heard differing interpretations, but at UCD you can wear a mask if you aren’t doing anything else that is against campus rules. As far as I’m concerned (because my middle name is Constitution), you can call out to kill ‘another 100’ of my people, or you can wear a mask, but you can’t do both at the same time.
“Plus, there were medical reasons to wear masks”
I’d say medical masks are more an excuse than a reason, and certainly outside. It amazes me the number of protestors with the flu, respiratory distress or Covidophobia.
“Regarding law enforcement, it seems to me that a large identification number somewhere on their uniform should suffice – something that would be visible in videos.”
What a great idea. If an ICE agent did indeed do something illegal or over the top he would be identifiable by a number instead of his face or name. Then using the number the proper actions could be taken. That stops all possible doxxing.
What about that David?
I think an issue with this is the impersonation cases that DG listed. You can’t hold an officer up to the light like a $50 bill to see if he’s real or not.
Also, it’s the interaction. It all needs to be human – face to face. You arrest me or call for me to be killed, I want to see your face.