As the debate over immigration enforcement intensifies across the United States, the city of San Jose finds itself at the center of a growing movement to require law enforcement officers—federal, state, and local—to reveal their identities during operations. This push comes amid a wave of aggressive immigration crackdowns under President Donald Trump’s administration and mounting concerns about public trust, civil liberties, and the safety of both officers and communities.
On September 10, 2025, San Jose city councilmembers Peter Ortiz, Rosemary Kamei, David Cohen, and Pamela Campos introduced a memo directing the city attorney’s office to draft an ordinance that would prohibit all law enforcement officers, including federal agents, from wearing masks or concealing their faces. The ordinance would also mandate that officers display visible identification, a move that councilmembers argue is essential for transparency and accountability.
“Every San Josean should be able to trust that when an officer approaches them, they know exactly who that person is and which agency they represent,” Councilmember Pamela Campos told The Mercury News. “This ordinance requiring the unmasking of law enforcement is about transparency, accountability, and public safety. My District 2 neighbors are making clear that concealing identities already undermines trust, strips away civil liberties and sets a dangerous precedent. Our community sees it as the beginning of dismantling our democracy and American values, where abuse of power can be exercised without consequence.”
The San Jose proposal is part of a broader trend. Across the country, critics have decried the increasing number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and other law enforcement personnel who conceal their faces during raids, arguing that such practices foster fear and erode confidence in law enforcement. According to NPR, individuals in Los Angeles have reported disturbing encounters with masked agents who refuse to identify themselves, prompting cities like Los Angeles and Chicago to consider or implement their own ordinances and executive orders to address the issue.
At the federal level, U.S. Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Alex Padilla (D-CA) introduced the Visible Identification Standards for Immigration-Based Law Enforcement (VISIBLE) Act, which they say would “place a critical check on the government’s power, ensuring basic transparency safeguards that protect public trust and legitimacy in immigration enforcement operations.” Meanwhile, in California, state Senators Scott Wiener and Renée Pérez have championed two companion bills—Senate Bill 627 (the No Secret Police Act) and Senate Bill 805 (the No Vigilantes Act)—aiming to achieve similar goals.
Senator Wiener has been especially vocal in his criticism. In July, he declared, “The ICE masked secret police are raining terror on communities across California, and it has to stop. 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 behavior. ICE’s brazenly illegal conduct—including straight-up racial profiling by masked, unidentified agents—is undermining public safety, creating extreme fear, and destroying confidence in law enforcement.”
The legislative push comes as the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts reach new heights. Through the first seven months of 2025, ICE deported nearly 200,000 people, putting the administration on pace for the most aggressive operations in almost a decade, according to The Mercury News. Trump’s approach has particularly targeted so-called “sanctuary cities” and states, with attempts to withhold federal funding from jurisdictions that resist cooperation with immigration authorities. Although federal courts blocked these funding threats last month, Trump has secured key victories from Congress and the Supreme Court in recent weeks. Notably, Congress passed the “Big Beautiful Bill,” allocating $170.7 billion for immigration and border enforcement, while the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to resume its sweeps in Los Angeles after halting a restraining order that questioned the government’s tactics.
In San Jose, where a significant portion of Santa Clara County households have immigrant backgrounds, the effects of these policies have been palpable. School attendance in immigrant communities has declined, and businesses—especially in East San Jose—have reported a 30-40% drop in sales. While San Jose is not officially a “sanctuary city,” it has declared itself a “welcoming city” and allocated $1 million, with the possibility of increasing to $1.5 million, for immigration support services in the 2025-2026 fiscal year. The city’s police department has reiterated its policy of not enforcing immigration laws or inquiring about a person’s legal status.
The proposed San Jose ordinance would not only require disclosure of agency affiliation and prohibit officers from concealing their identities (with limited exceptions), but it also calls on the police department to report on incidents involving immigration activities. “We are calling on every leader to join this fight,” Campos said. “San Joseans expect their local leaders to stand up for their rights and values now. We are heartened by the legal challenges being brought against these abuses of power, and San José has been proactive in signing onto amicus briefs to combat them.”
Yet, not everyone agrees on the best path forward. Opponents of these measures, including the Peace Officers Research Association of California—the state’s largest law enforcement organization—argue that such legislation could jeopardize officer safety and is unlikely to achieve its intended effect. “California already has robust oversight measures to ensure that officers can be identified and held responsible for their actions, including language in our penal code which requires uniformed officers to wear a badge, nameplate or other device which clearly displays their ID number or name,” association president Brian Marvel said. “Moreover, California lacks the authority to regulate federal officers’ attire or operations, a fight better suited for Washington, D.C., where a bill has already been introduced to prevent ICE agents from concealing their identities.”
Legal analysis has also raised questions about the enforceability of state-level measures like SB 627. The Assembly Committee on Public Safety found that Wiener’s bill faces constitutional hurdles, including the Supremacy Clause—which dictates that federal law overrides state law—and the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity, which shields federal activities from state regulation.
SB 627 itself, filed by Senators Wiener and Jesse Arreguin in June 2025, would ban law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings in most situations, aiming to boost transparency and public trust. However, the bill was recently amended to exempt highway patrol officers, a change that has drawn criticism from opponents who say it unfairly targets local officers while leaving federal agents less affected. The California Police Chiefs Association warned that the bill could force local law enforcement to "second guess" their actions, potentially putting their safety at risk. Legislators faced a deadline of midnight on September 12, 2025, to decide the bill’s fate, as reported by KCRA in Sacramento.
Proponents, however, remain steadfast. They argue that visible identification is a basic safeguard in any democracy and that transparency is vital for restoring public trust—especially in communities that have felt the brunt of immigration enforcement. As Marissa Montes, professor at LMU Loyola Law School and director of the Loyola Immigrant Justice Clinic, explained on NPR’s Morning Edition, the presence of masked officers during immigration raids in Los Angeles has only heightened anxiety and confusion among residents, many of whom are U.S. citizens themselves.
As the deadline for SB 627 approaches and local ordinances move through city governments, California stands as a microcosm of the national debate: how to balance the competing imperatives of public safety, civil liberties, and effective law enforcement in an era of unprecedented immigration enforcement. The coming weeks will reveal whether lawmakers and communities can find common ground—or if the rift over masked officers will only deepen.
