California lawmakers have taken a bold step toward reshaping the relationship between law enforcement and the public, passing landmark legislation that would ban most police officers from covering their faces while on duty. The move—sparked by recent immigration raids in Los Angeles, where masked federal agents drew widespread criticism—marks the first time a state legislature has approved such a sweeping mask ban for law enforcement. The bill, known as the No Secret Police Act (Senate Bill 627), now awaits the signature of Governor Gavin Newsom, who has about a month to decide its fate.
Supporters of the measure, including Democratic state Sens. Scott Wiener of San Francisco and Jesse Arreguin of Berkeley, say the goal is simple yet profound: to boost transparency and rebuild public trust in law enforcement. “We have to stand up and say no to the secret police raining fear and intimidation on communities across California,” Wiener told CBS News. “Law enforcement should never be easily confused with the guy in the ski mask robbing a liquor store, yet that's what's happening with ICE's extreme masking. In the face of rising fascism, California must hold those who are threatening our communities accountable and restore confidence in our local law enforcement who are proud to show their faces.”
The legislation, passed by a 28-11 vote in the Senate on September 12, 2025, prohibits officers from wearing masks, ski masks, neck gaiters, or any personal disguise intended to evade recognition while on official duty. The bill applies not only to local police but also to officers from federal agencies—including those involved in immigration enforcement—operating within California. The measure was introduced in June, following high-profile immigration raids in Southern California that prompted protests and the deployment of the National Guard and Marines, according to KPTV-KPDX and the Associated Press.
Recent events have heightened the urgency for such reforms. A Supreme Court ruling earlier in the week allowed the federal government to resume sweeping immigration raids in Los Angeles, permitting agents to target individuals based on race, language, or presence at certain locations. Assemblymember Juan Carrillo, a Democrat and vice chair of the Latino caucus, voiced his dismay, stating, “The decision is effectively allowing federal agents to stop suspects based solely on their race, language, or job.” He added, “How is anyone supposed to reasonably believe that they are law enforcement officers and not masked individuals trying to kidnap you? Imagine the absolute fear of being pulled over at gunpoint by a group of masked individuals.”
Proponents argue that visible identification is crucial for public accountability and to prevent impersonation. Community advocates and civil rights groups have long raised alarms about officers wearing face coverings during demonstrations, which they say makes it difficult to recognize or report potential misconduct. Supporters also point to an opinion from constitutional law expert Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of California, Berkeley, who wrote in the Sacramento Bee, “A state cannot directly regulate the federal government, but that does not mean federal employees do not have to follow state rules unless doing so would significantly interfere with the performance of their duties. For example, while on the job, federal employees must stop at red lights.” Chemerinsky added, “ICE agents have never before worn masks when apprehending people, and that never has posed a problem. Nor have other officers of local, state and federal law enforcement faced dangers from the public because they don’t wear masks in the streets.”
The bill does carve out important exceptions. Officers may wear protective gear in tactical situations, during approved undercover assignments, or when health and medical circumstances require it—such as N95 respirators or breathing apparatuses for toxic environments. Motorcycle helmets, protective eyewear, and masks for inclement weather or underwater operations are also exempted. These provisions aim to strike a balance between transparency and officer safety, a point lawmakers emphasized during the floor debate. “This law strikes a balance between transparency and safety,” one legislator said. “The public deserves to see the faces of those entrusted to serve and protect, while still recognizing the need for officer protection in specific cases.”
Not everyone is convinced. Police unions and law enforcement leaders have expressed strong concerns, warning that the bill could endanger officers in volatile situations. Alan Wayne Barcelona, president of the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association, wrote a letter opposing the bill, arguing, “It disregards everyday scenarios where anonymity is not just helpful but essential: undercover assignments, organized crime surveillance, narcotics investigations, and even some patrol or crowd control work.” Similarly, state Republican Sen. Kelly Seyarto stated, “Bad guys wear masks because they don’t want to get caught. Good guys wear masks because they don’t want to get killed.”
Federal officials have also pushed back. The Department of Homeland Security criticized the rhetoric of the bill’s sponsors, stating to CBS News Los Angeles, “Sen. Scott Wiener's legislation attempting to ban our federal law enforcement from wearing masks and his rhetoric comparing them to 'secret police'—likening them to the Gestapo—is diabolical. 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.”
ICE officials have echoed these safety concerns. Todd Lyons, acting director of ICE, told CBS News, “I’m not a proponent” of agents wearing face coverings during arrest operations, but he allows it out of concern for their safety. “However, if that's a tool that the men and women of ICE [need] to keep themselves and their family safe, then I will allow it,” Lyons said in his first network interview at ICE headquarters. “I do kind of push back on the criticism that they don't identify themselves.”
The debate over the mask ban is unfolding amid a broader national conversation. Inspired by California’s move, similar bills have been introduced in Tennessee, Michigan, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. Democrats in Congress have also proposed mask bans for law enforcement. Meanwhile, in California, the Legislature passed a related measure—Senate Bill 805, known as the No Vigilantes Act—requiring officers to clearly display identification featuring their name or badge number. “With the rise in impersonation claims and the ensuing fear and confusion being created, there is a clear need for stronger, more consistent standards for law enforcement identification,” said Democratic state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez of Pasadena.
If Governor Newsom signs Senate Bill 627 into law, it would take effect statewide in 2026, with law enforcement agencies required to update their uniform policies. While the governor has criticized federal agents’ use of masks, he has also questioned the state’s authority over federal officers, leaving some uncertainty about how the law would be enforced in practice.
As California stands at the forefront of this contentious issue, the outcome of the No Secret Police Act will likely reverberate far beyond the state’s borders, shaping the future of law enforcement transparency and public trust for years to come.
