California has ignited a national debate by becoming the first state to ban law enforcement officers—including federal immigration agents—from concealing their faces during official duties. Governor Gavin Newsom signed the landmark “No Secret Police Act” (SB 627) into law on September 20, 2025, in Los Angeles, setting the stage for a high-stakes legal and political showdown with the federal government and law enforcement groups across the spectrum.
The new law, authored by State Senator Scott Wiener, takes effect January 1, 2026, and prohibits the use of balaclavas, ski masks, neck gaiters, and similar opaque face coverings by officers on duty. Agencies operating anywhere in California—including local, out-of-state, and federal entities—are now required to publicly post a facial-covering policy by July 1, 2026, restricting mask use to narrowly defined circumstances. Exemptions are carved out for undercover work, specific tactical operations, protective medical or safety gear, and SWAT assignments while performing SWAT duties. Violations can be prosecuted as infractions or misdemeanors, and the law introduces enhanced civil liability: anyone found to have committed abuses such as assault or false imprisonment while unlawfully masked faces at least $10,000 in statutory damages.
Governor Newsom’s signature capped a broader legislative package aimed at reining in what state officials and immigrant-rights advocates describe as increasingly aggressive and opaque federal immigration enforcement tactics. The suite of new laws also bars immigration agents from entering schools or non-public hospital areas without a judicial warrant, mandates that schools notify families when enforcement is on campus, and requires all on-duty officers to display visible identification, such as a name or badge number.
“Immigrants have rights and we have the right to stand up and push back,” Newsom declared at the signing event, according to CalMatters. He drew a direct line from the new legislation to what he characterized as “lawless immigration raids and arrests in California” under the Trump Administration, which saw a surge of masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents conducting mass raids in Los Angeles earlier in 2025. Newsom described the scenes as “like a dystopian sci-fi movie—unmarked cars, people in masks, people quite literally disappearing, no due process.” He pressed federal agents to “unmask,” pointedly asking, “What are you afraid of?”
The law’s supporters argue that the rise of masked federal agents—often captured in viral videos during recent raids—has fostered public fear, eroded trust in law enforcement, and enabled abuses to go unchecked. Senator Wiener, the bill’s author, stated during legislative hearings, “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. When law enforcement officers hide their identities, it destroys community trust.”
The legislative pushback comes amid a broader federal crackdown on both legal and illegal immigration. The Trump Administration has not only ramped up mass deportation campaigns but also tightened visa regulations, imposed new fees, and introduced stricter criteria for citizenship and visa applications. The crackdown has drawn criticism for giving ICE agents what some call “unfettered access” to sensitive locations like schools, churches, and hospitals, often without identification or warrants. Democratic lawmakers and immigrant advocates have described these tactics as reminiscent of secret police operations, fueling widespread protests and calls for reform.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, speaking at the bill signing, called the legislative package “profound,” adding, “All of this legislative resistance is to protect Angelenos from our own federal government.” State Senator Lena Gonzalez echoed these concerns, warning against “the militarization of places like Paramount that happened on June 7,” referencing the deployment of the National Guard against protests in Los Angeles. She added, “We cannot have masked men coming around, picking up our communities without identifying themselves.”
Not surprisingly, the new law has drawn fierce opposition from federal officials and law enforcement organizations. The Department of Homeland Security condemned the mask ban, warning that unmasking agents would “contribute to a 1000% increase in assaults against” them and increase the risk of doxxing. Tricia McLaughlin, a DHS spokesperson, called comparisons to “secret police” tactics “despicable” and accused state leaders of trying to “outlaw officers wearing masks to protect themselves from being doxed and targeted by known and suspected terrorist sympathizers.”
Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli was unequivocal in his response, declaring on X (formerly Twitter), “The State of California has no jurisdiction over the federal government. If Newsom wants to regulate our agents, he must go through Congress.” He added, “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.”
Local law enforcement groups have also objected, arguing that the law punishes local officers for federal actions and jeopardizes officer safety. Brian Marvel, president of the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), stated, “It’s using an emotionally charged issue on a federal level to pass a bill that will only affect local peace officers. You’re upset with the feds, but you’re going to punish us.” Marvel further argued that the bill could ban personal protective equipment used in high-risk situations, such as riots or chemical exposures, though the law does provide exemptions for safety gear and SWAT operations.
Legal experts agree that the law is likely to face immediate court challenges, particularly over its applicability to federal agents. Aya Gruber, a constitutional law professor at the University of Southern California, told the New York Times she expects the ban will be challenged and that “this may be more of a symbolic piece of legislation.” Still, she noted that federal agents are generally required to follow neutral state laws unless those laws significantly interfere with federal duties—a legal standard sure to be tested in court. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, argued in a Sacramento Bee op-ed that officer safety is often used as a “pretext” to justify intimidating practices, writing, “Drug cartels in other countries use masked assailants to kidnap people off the streets. ICE agents wearing masks is meant to evoke the terror of being kidnapped. It serves no law enforcement purpose.”
California’s move is already inspiring similar legislative efforts elsewhere. New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Virginia have all introduced bills to ban masking by immigration agents. In Congress, a Democratic coalition introduced H.R. 4176, a federal bill modeled after California’s law, earlier this year.
For now, the Golden State has thrown down the gauntlet, declaring its intent to restore transparency and accountability in law enforcement—even if that means a protracted legal battle with Washington. As Newsom put it, “We’re going to test the theory.”
With the law set to take effect in 2026, all eyes will be on the courts—and the streets of California—to see whether the state’s experiment in unmasking law enforcement will set a new national standard or become another flashpoint in the ongoing war over immigration and state rights.
