On Saturday, September 20, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a groundbreaking bill that bans federal immigration agents and most law enforcement officers from covering their faces while conducting official business in the state. The move, which Newsom called a direct response to escalating immigration raids and the Trump administration’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants, marks California as the first state in the nation to enact such a ban.
The new law, set to go into effect in January 2026, comes after months of mounting tension in Los Angeles and across California. Videos circulating on social media earlier this year showed masked and armed immigration agents handcuffing immigrants in Southern California, sparking outrage and protests. The images of agents in balaclavas and neck gaiters, unidentifiable and operating in unmarked cars, deeply unsettled many residents and drew comparisons to “secret police.” As Newsom put it during a signing event at a Los Angeles high school, “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. This is a disgrace. This is an outrage, what we’ve allowed to happen in this country.” (as reported by The New York Times and The Guardian).
California’s new law prohibits local and federal law enforcement officers—including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents—from wearing face coverings such as ski masks, balaclavas, and neck gaiters that shield their identities during official operations. There are exceptions for undercover agents, medical masks like N95 respirators, tactical gear, and other safety equipment. The law does not apply to state police. Violations are classified as misdemeanors.
Proponents of the law, including Democratic leaders and immigrant rights activists, argue that the mask ban is essential for transparency and accountability. They contend that masked agents can act with impunity, making it harder for the public to hold them responsible for their actions. Governor Newsom emphasized, “ICE agents would no longer be hidden from accountability,” adding that masks prevent “transparency” for citizens and hinder “oversight.” He continued, “Our status is unique in the United States of America. It’s what makes California great. It’s what makes America great. And it’s under assault by this administration.” (Nexstar Media Inc.).
California is home to a large immigrant population—27 percent of its residents are foreign-born—and the state has often found itself at odds with federal immigration policy. The recent surge in federal enforcement, including the deployment of hundreds of National Guard soldiers and Marines to Los Angeles to quell protests against deportations (without Newsom’s approval), has left many local residents feeling caught in the crossfire between state and federal authorities. From June to August 2025 alone, the Department of Homeland Security reported arresting 5,000 undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles. Tragically, one person died during a chaotic ICE raid on a California farm prior to the bill’s signing.
Not surprisingly, the law has drawn sharp criticism from federal officials and law enforcement groups. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem warned that the measure would increase harassment and assaults on officers. “Comparing them to ‘secret police’ — likening them to the Gestapo — is despicable,” said Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the department. She argued that the ban would expose officers to greater risks, as “sanctuary politicians are trying to outlaw officers wearing masks to protect themselves from being doxed and targeted by known and suspected terrorist sympathizers.” Federal officials maintain that agents are already required to identify themselves and wear vests marked with ICE or Homeland Security during operations.
Brian R. Marvel, president of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, expressed outrage, calling the law a “troubling betrayal that California’s local law enforcement community will not soon forget.” He predicted it would have a “chilling effect on our profession,” making it harder to recruit and retain officers. “This bill makes local officers collateral damage. It is a political stunt by all parties involved, plain and simple,” Marvel said (The New York Times).
Legal experts are divided on the law’s enforceability, especially regarding federal agents. Aya Gruber, a constitutional law professor at the University of Southern California, said, “It will definitely be challenged — 100 percent,” predicting that the federal government would seek an injunction and that the issue could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, defended the law’s constitutionality, writing that “federal employees must still follow general state rules unless doing so would significantly interfere with the performance of their duties.” Chemerinsky argued, “It’s important that the state take a stand. It’s obviously not a slam dunk because there are arguments on both sides, but that’s often the case with the law.”
The law is part of a broader package of legislation signed by Newsom aiming to restrict ICE activity in California. Additional measures prevent immigration agents from entering schools and hospitals without a valid warrant or judicial order, and require schools and higher education institutions to notify parents and teachers when immigration enforcement is on campus. The new rules were prompted in part by an incident in April 2025, when federal agents attempted to enter two Los Angeles elementary schools for welfare checks but were denied entry. State leaders worry that the threat of enforcement could deter undocumented immigrants from seeking medical care or sending their children to school.
Newsom’s office did not shy away from political jabs. After signing the bills, Newsom posted on X (formerly Twitter) that Kristi Noem would “have a bad day today,” adding, “You’re welcome, America.” The post drew a swift response from Bill Essayli, the acting U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, who said, “We have zero tolerance for direct or implicit threats against government officials,” and referred the matter to the Secret Service for a threat assessment.
California’s actions have inspired lawmakers in other states—including New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts—to propose similar restrictions, though none have advanced as far as California’s. Supporters of the mask ban say the measure is necessary to rebuild public trust in law enforcement and to prevent impersonation by those seeking to commit crimes. As Jon Stewart aptly put it, cited by Newsom, “This is not about the pronoun police, this is about the secret police.”
As legal battles loom and the national debate over immigration enforcement intensifies, California’s new laws set a precedent and send a clear message: the state is determined to assert its own vision of transparency, accountability, and protection for its diverse communities, even in the face of fierce federal opposition.
