California has made history by becoming the first state in the nation to outlaw most law enforcement officers, including federal immigration agents, from wearing masks while conducting official business. Governor Gavin Newsom signed the sweeping legislation on September 20, 2025, at a press conference in Los Angeles, marking a bold move in the state’s ongoing resistance to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement policies. The new law, which takes effect January 1, 2026, comes as part of a package of bills aimed at safeguarding immigrant rights and restoring public trust in law enforcement.
The decision to ban face coverings like neck gaiters and ski masks for local and federal officers—except in cases involving undercover work, medical-grade masks, or tactical operations—was prompted by recent high-profile immigration raids in Los Angeles. During these raids, federal agents, often masked and unidentifiable, carried out mass arrests that sent shockwaves through the city and led to days of protest. President Donald Trump responded by deploying National Guard troops and Marines to the area, escalating tensions further. As Governor Newsom put it at the signing event, “We celebrate that diversity. It’s what makes California great. It’s what makes America great. It is under assault.”
According to Associated Press reporting, Newsom decried the chilling effect of masked, unmarked agents detaining people without identification or badge numbers. “The impact of these policies all across this city, our state and nation are terrifying,” he said. “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.”
But the new law immediately sparked fierce backlash from Trump administration officials and law enforcement groups. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) called on Newsom to veto the bill, labeling it “despicable and a flagrant attempt to endanger our officers.” In a statement, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin 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.” The department maintains that masking is essential for the safety of agents and their families, especially as public and online harassment against them increases.
Bill Essayli, acting U.S. attorney for Southern California, echoed these concerns, stating on X (formerly Twitter) that “the state does not have jurisdiction over the federal government and [he] has told agencies the mask ban has no effect on their operations.” He added, “Our agents will continue to protect their identities.” Essayli also criticized Newsom for comments made about Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, referring the matter to the Secret Service for review.
California law enforcement organizations, too, voiced opposition to the legislation. Brian Marvel, president of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, argued that the law would primarily affect local police, not federal agents, since constitutional challenges from the federal government are all but certain. “It’s using an emotionally charged issue on a federal level to pass a bill that will only affect local peace officers,” Marvel told CalMatters. “You’re upset with the feds, but you’re going to punish us.”
The law’s author, Democratic State Senator Scott Wiener, described the measure as a necessary response to what he called “secret police tactics” under the Trump administration. “ICE’s recklessness creates chaos as agents run around with what are effectively ski masks and no identification, grabbing people, throwing them in unmarked vehicles, and disappearing them,” Wiener said at an August legislative hearing. “When law enforcement officers hide their identities, it destroys community trust.”
The bill, dubbed the “No Secret Police Act,” passed both chambers of the Democrat-controlled state legislature after heated debate. Lawmakers included exemptions for certain face coverings—such as face shields and motorcycle helmets—as well as for tactical teams and undercover assignments. Officers who violate the law could face infractions or misdemeanors, and could be sued personally for tortious conduct, including assault or false arrest while masked.
According to Los Angeles Times, the package of bills signed by Newsom also includes measures that prevent immigration agents from entering schools and health care facilities without a valid warrant or judicial order. Schools are now required to notify parents and teachers when agents are present on campus. Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, who championed the Safe Haven Schools Act, declared, “Students cannot learn if they live in fear of being deported. The California Safe Haven Schools Act is a clear message to Donald Trump: ‘keep ICE out of our schools.’”
California’s resistance to federal immigration enforcement is not new. The state has long positioned itself as a sanctuary, passing laws to limit local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Earlier this year, the Legislature authorized $50 million for the California Department of Justice and allied legal groups, resulting in more than 40 lawsuits against the Trump administration. As political consultant Mike Madrid put it, “California has done what no other state has done: establish itself as the tip of the spear on resisting a lot of these efforts that are an affront to its values.” He added, “99% of this is the purview of the federal government. So a lot of it is just symbolic, but symbolism matters. It’s both politically astute but also morally right.”
Despite these efforts, experts caution that the practical impact of the new laws on federal immigration operations may be limited. Kevin Johnson, an immigration law professor at UC Davis, noted, “The federal government is going to continue doing what it’s doing, in one form or another. I do think the legislation gives some hope and optimism to communities that feel under fire, vulnerable and basically hated by the federal government.”
Supporters of the mask ban argue that it will help restore public trust in law enforcement and prevent impersonation of officers—a concern raised after footage circulated of masked, unidentified agents detaining bystanders in Los Angeles. Opponents, however, warn of legal challenges and question whether the state can truly enforce the ban on federal agents, given the supremacy of federal law.
In a press release, Newsom’s office countered criticism that California is simply refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. The statement pointed out that since Newsom took office, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has transferred more than 10,000 inmates to ICE custody, and the governor has vetoed bills that would have restricted such coordination. The administration also cited data from Syracuse University showing that over 70% of ICE detainees have no criminal convictions, challenging the Trump administration’s claim that it targets only “the worst of the worst.”
As the legal and political battles continue, one thing is clear: California’s latest laws signal a deepening divide between state and federal government over the rights of immigrants and the limits of law enforcement power. Whether these measures will withstand constitutional scrutiny or effect real change on the ground remains to be seen, but for now, the Golden State is drawing a clear line in the sand.
