Should ICE Agents Be Able To Wear Masks?

Protect and serve. That’s supposed to be the job.

What could be further from that than masked agents roaming American streets in packs, refusing to identify themselves, and terrorizing—there is no other word for it at this point—American citizens?

Early on, the excuse for wearing masks was that it was necessary to protect the agents. From what? There were reports that they were being doxxed, which no one in law enforcement likes to deal with. But they’re the ones assaulting and killing people, which is far more problematic. Back in July, the Acting Director of ICE, Todd Lyons, said that he did not encourage agents to use masks but would continue to let them wear them in the field “if that’s a tool they need to keep them and their families safe.” Now masks and gaiters are emblematic of ICE agents and their colleagues from CBP (Customs and Border Protection) doing immigration work in places like Minneapolis.

You don’t routinely see the FBI or U.S. Marshals out doing their jobs with masks on. There is literally no legitimate reason for ICE and Customs Border Patrol (CBP) to continue to operate this way during immigration “enforcement actions,” especially in light of the recent history of documented abuses. Anonymity accelerates that kind of behavior. It tells the agents they aren’t accountable for violating people’s civil rights.

There has been concern about the kind of people the administration is rushing into service in ICE and as deportation officers. Congressional Democrats are asking for information on whether hiring includes now-pardoned Jan. 6 defendants.

The overwhelming majority of federal law enforcement agents I worked with during my 25-year career at DOJ were men and women who were committed to following the law themselves while protecting their communities and prosecuting crimes. They believed citizens had constitutional rights. There’s no reason for the sudden change, a world where an agent shoots and kills a woman for no good reason, except that the current leadership in the White House and at DHS is willing to tolerate, if not encourage, what we’re now seeing. There are people ripped out of their cars, homes entered without a judicial warrant, agents who treat American citizens like they have no rights. This administration dishonors the service of the federal agents who spent their careers committed to constitutional policing.

Law enforcement officers are trained to de-escalate tense situations. Instead, we’re watching ICE agents act like the accelerant to a smoldering fire. The administration’s take on the failure of agents to behave like the good guys they’re supposed to be isn’t to put a stop to it. Instead, they revel in the Gestapo-like images of doors being busted down, school kids being knocked to the ground, and peaceful protesters being hit with pepper spray. So, it’s up to someone else to stop it.

The state of training at ICE is unclear, as new agents are rapidly hired and deployed. But what we’re seeing is troubling.

Some states have tried passing laws to prohibit masking.

California passed SB 627 (the “No Secret Police Act”) in late 2025, restricting law enforcement, including federal agents, from using extreme face coverings like ski masks during operations, effective Jan 1, 2026. There are logical exemptions to protect officer safety and the identity of undercover operatives. California Governor Gavin Newsom said at the time, “This is about the secret police. We're not North Korea, Mr. President. We're not the Soviet Union. This is the United States of America.”

The language of the bill explains that “facial coverings limit the visibility of facial expressions, which are essential components of nonverbal communication. In high-stress or emotionally charged interactions, the inability to read an officer’s expression may lead to misinterpretation of tone or intent, increasing the risk of conflict escalation” and that “the visibility of an officer’s face is vital for promoting transparency, facilitating communication, and building trust between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.” It also points out that “when officers are not readily identifiable, it increases the risk of impersonation by unauthorized individuals, which further undermines public trust, endangers public safety, and hinders legitimate law enforcement operations.”

But the Constitution protects federal supremacy, and the predictable challenge to the law from DOJ ensued in November 2025, arguing that the measure infringes on federal authority and endangers agent safety in an environment of accelerating threats made against them. California agreed it would not enforce the law until a judge had the opportunity to rule on the federal government’s request for a preliminary injunction. The concession was viewed as “a tactical decision by the state, speeding the court proceedings toward a conclusion while avoiding a temporary restraining order that likely would have prevented the law from taking effect in the meantime.” A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled to take place this week.

Other states and localities are working with similar measures, including Denver, New Jersey, and New York. Congress could get into the act, too, avoiding the Supremacy Clause issue. California Representative Eric Swalwell has suggested it could be possible, for instance, to deny agents who are inappropriately masked the benefits of qualified immunity if they engage in misconduct. Greg Sargent detailed his conversation with Swalwell in a series of tweets. Other Democratic representatives have suggested on social media that they, too, would support such a move, but it remains to be seen whether it can gain any traction with Republicans.

Law enforcement can adapt to measures that prohibit masking except when necessary (as in SWAT operations or for undercover agents). Although federal law doesn’t contain any restrictions on wearing masks, in 2022, the Secret Service and the Park Police agreed to wear badges and identify themselves in public, as a result of the debacle in Lafayette Square during the first Trump administration, when rubber bullets, tear gas, and flash bangs were used on peaceful protestors. Federal agents and police cleared the Square to facilitate Trump’s desire for a photo opportunity at St. John’s Church.

Whether or not the California law passes constitutional muster, its rationale is strong. In a moment where the focus should be on de-escalating tension between federal agents and communities, masks are making it worse. It would be a simple measure and a show of good faith toward communities like Minneapolis to end their use. That the administration won’t take even that simple step tells you all you need to know about where this is headed.

Thanks for being here with me at Civil Discourse. I appreciate your support. Paid subscriptions make the work and resources that go into the newsletter possible and allow us to expand the community of people who believe it’s our duty as citizens to participate in our democracy.

We’re in this together,

Joyce