California has ignited a national debate over law enforcement transparency and state sovereignty with its groundbreaking new law banning most police officers, including federal immigration agents, from covering their faces while on duty. Governor Gavin Newsom signed the No Secret Police Act—officially Senate Bill 627—at a high-profile event in Los Angeles on September 20, 2025, surrounded by lawmakers, educators, and immigrant rights advocates. The law, which goes into effect January 1, 2026, is the first of its kind in the United States and has already drawn sharp criticism from federal officials and law enforcement groups, setting the stage for potential legal battles and political fallout.
The legislation comes as a direct response to a series of highly publicized immigration raids in Los Angeles, where masked federal agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were photographed and filmed forcing people into unmarked vehicles. These images, which quickly spread across social media, provoked outrage, protests, and a rapid deployment of National Guard troops and Marines by President Donald Trump. According to The New York Times and BBC, the masked raids raised fears among immigrant communities and fueled accusations of government overreach and intimidation.
"It’s like a dystopian sci-fi movie. Unmarked cars, people in masks, people quite literally disappearing. No due process, no rights, no right in a democracy where we have rights. Immigrants have rights, and we have the right to stand up and push back, and that’s what we’re doing here today," Newsom declared at the bill signing, as reported by CNN and KTVU. He emphasized California’s unique diversity—27% of its residents are foreign-born—and argued that the state must safeguard its communities from what he called "a campaign of intimidation and fear led by the Trump administration."
The No Secret Police Act prohibits law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings such as neck gaiters, ski masks, and other items that conceal their identities while performing official duties. There are exceptions for riot gear, medical masks like N95 respirators, and undercover work. Officers are now also required to display their name and badge number to ensure transparency and accountability. The law does not apply to state police but does cover local police, sheriffs, and federal agents operating within California.
State Senator Scott Wiener, the bill’s author, described the measure as a necessary check on what he characterized as an expansion of secretive federal enforcement. "Donald Trump has basically turned ICE, which he’s expanding dramatically, into a secret police force, to terrorize communities, particularly Latino communities," Wiener said, according to KTVU.
The law’s supporters, including constitutional law expert Erwin Chemerinsky of UC Berkeley, argue that federal employees must generally follow state rules unless doing so would significantly interfere with their duties. "For example, while on the job, federal employees must stop at red lights," Chemerinsky wrote in an opinion piece for the Sacramento Bee. Newsom echoed this sentiment, insisting that California has the authority to set reasonable limits on federal conduct within its borders—an assertion that goes to the heart of the ongoing debate over state versus federal power.
Not everyone is convinced. Federal officials have quickly denounced the law, raising questions about its enforceability and the potential risks to officer safety. Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, a Trump appointee, was blunt in his response: "The State of California has no jurisdiction over the federal government. If Newsom wants to regulate our agents, he must go through Congress. I’ve directed our federal agencies that the law signed today has no effect on our operations. Our agents will continue to protect their identities," he posted on X (formerly Twitter), as reported by KTVU and CNN.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also weighed in, with Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin calling the law "despicable and a flagrant attempt to endanger our officers." She argued, "While our federal law enforcement officers are being assaulted by rioters and having rocks and Molotov cocktails thrown at them, a sanctuary politician is trying to outlaw officers wearing masks to protect themselves from being doxxed and targeted by known and suspected terrorist sympathizers." DHS has urged Newsom to veto the bill, warning that exposing agents’ identities puts them and their families at risk.
Governor Newsom, however, dismissed these concerns as unsubstantiated. "There’s an assertion that somehow there is an exponential increase in assaults on officers, but they will not provide the data. All they have provided is misinformation and misdirection," he said, according to CNN.
The law’s legal standing remains uncertain. University of California, Davis law professor Raquel Aldana explained to NPR that California is attempting to draw a line on what federal agents can do within state borders. "At some point, the answer has to be ‘no’ and I think this is what the state of California is trying to do. Establish limits as to how much the federal government can do within the jurisdiction of the state. It’s an issue of state sovereignty," Aldana said. She also noted that the law’s impact could be limited because it does not apply to California’s own state-level law enforcement, though it does bind local agencies, which must implement new mask policies by July 2026.
Local law enforcement groups have also voiced strong opposition. The California State Sheriff’s Association and the California Peace Officers Research Association, representing over 80,000 public safety members, labeled the law reckless and dangerous. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican candidate for governor, accused Newsom and Democratic lawmakers of prioritizing criminal safety over that of officers. "They didn’t ban criminals from wearing masks, they didn’t tell criminals that they had to identify themselves," Bianco said, calling for voters to oust supporters of the bill in the next election, as reported by NPR.
On the other side, immigrant rights advocates say the law is a step toward greater accountability. Giselle Garcia of NorCal Resist told Capradio that even if the law’s enforceability is uncertain, "when things are codified under law, there is more of an opportunity to not just cite to law, but hopefully there’s some kind of basis for litigation to really challenge when there’s a federal government abuse happening." Garcia reported that court observers from her organization have been harassed and assaulted by masked ICE agents who refused to identify themselves.
The mask ban is part of a broader package of immigration-related measures signed by Newsom, including laws requiring schools to notify parents and teachers when immigration agents are on campus, and barring agents from entering schools and healthcare facilities without a valid warrant. Earlier in 2025, California allocated $50 million to its Department of Justice and legal groups, resulting in more than 40 lawsuits against the Trump administration.
With similar legislation under consideration in states like New York and Massachusetts, California’s bold move is likely to reverberate far beyond its borders, testing the boundaries of federal-state relations and the future of law enforcement transparency in America.
As the new law’s January 2026 start date approaches, all eyes will be on the inevitable court challenges and the ongoing struggle to balance public safety, officer security, and community trust in an era of deep political division.
