Newsom Taunts ICE Agents Before Signing Face-Mask Ban
“To ICE, unmask. What are you afraid of? You’re gonna do enforcement? Provide an ID.”
True to his word, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law on Saturday that would prohibit Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from wearing face masks. I say “would” because federal law supersedes state law. As Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to independent journalist Breanna Morello, “To be clear, we aren’t complying.”
🚨UPDATE🚨
Gavin Newsom signed a law to prohibiting face coverings for federal agents.
DHS Assistant Secretary @TriciaOhio tells me, “to be clear: we aren’t complying.”
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/LneUaSsAmI
— Breanna Morello (@BreannaMorello) September 21, 2025
McLaughlin condemned the measure as “despicable,” calling it “a flagrant attempt to endanger our officers.” She described sanctuary politicians’ comparisons of ICE agents to the “Gestapo” as “diabolical.” McLaughlin also criticized Newsom for a threatening post on his “Governor Newsom Press Office” account on X that [DHS Secretary] “Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today. You’re welcome, America.”
🚨 BREAKING: Gavin Newsom's press office referred to the Secret Service for "full threat assessment" after they made this statement.
"Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today. You’re welcome, America," Newsom's office said.
"We have zero tolerance for direct or implicit… pic.twitter.com/X9uEQkeQqC
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) September 20, 2025
🚨JUST IN🚨
DHS Assistant Secretary @TriciaOhio reacts to CA Governor Gavin Newsom banning federal agents from wearing face coverings. pic.twitter.com/4yQl4yt3V7
— Breanna Morello (@BreannaMorello) September 21, 2025
At any rate, this legislation, known as the No Secret Police Act (SB 627), is intended to “prohibit local and federal law enforcement from concealing their faces with ski masks and similar extreme masking.”
Specifically, the bill:
Prohibits local, federal, and out of state law enforcement officers … from wearing facial coverings that conceal their identity while in the performance of their duties.
SB 627 provides the following exemptions:
- SWAT teams
- Approved undercover assignments
- Translucent or clear masks
- Motorcycle helmets
- Eyewear to protect against retinal weapons
- N95 medical or surgical mask
- Breathing apparatuses necessary to protect against toxins, gas, and smoke
- Masks to protect against inclement weather
- Masks for underwater operations
A willful and knowing violation of the bill could result in either an infraction or misdemeanor.
The bill outlines the specific penalties law enforcement officers could face for noncompliance.
A Saturday press release from State Sen. Scott Wiener’s office reported that, last week, DHS “demanded” Newsom veto the bill, an order the governor clearly defied.
Wiener, who introduced this unfortunate measure, issued a scathing response which began:
As this authoritarian regime seeks to demolish our constitutional rights and engages in a straight up terror campaign, California is meeting the Trump Administration’s secret police tactics with strength and defiance. I applaud Governor Newsom for the tremendous leadership he has shown in combatting President Trump’s assault on California. The No Secret Police Act is a bold step that builds on a remarkable record of leadership defending our immigrant communities and democracy itself.
ICE’s secret police tactics, under Trump and Stephen Miller, are raining fear and aggression down on California and requiring us to adapt in real time. I’m committed to working with the Governor’s office to further refine SB 627 early next year to ensure it is as workable as possible for many law enforcement officers working in good faith to keep California communities safe.
In addition to SB 627, Newsom signed other bills into law, most of them aimed at limiting the ability of ICE to carry out operations in the state. The Washington Examiner reported that one of the bills would “requir[e] officers to provide identification while conducting operations, two others prohibiting ICE agents from entering schools or health facilities without a warrant, and another requiring schools to notify parents and teachers if ICE agents are on site.”
According to the Examiner, during an earlier press conference, “Newsom taunted ICE agents.” He said, “To ICE, unmask. What are you afraid of? You’re gonna do enforcement? Provide an ID.”
Newsom may be surprised to learn that even in deep-blue California, not all constituents will applaud measures that make law enforcement’s work harder and more dangerous. Some may ultimately decide to “vote with their feet,” and the resulting population decline could cost the state congressional seats after the 2030 census.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Democrats opening the state nullification playbook again.
This is a prescient comment for a number of reasons. The reason that troubles me the most is playing out in realtime in DC, NY and California, with federal prosecutors finding it difficult to obtain convictions OR EVEN INDICTMENTS in spite of overwhelming evidence of guilt in cases of citizens (and even politicians) clearly obstructing federal law enforcement, and in some cases, even committing obvious felonious assault.
We’re entering an authentic seditious period….again.
Did I miss the bill that outlaws rioters, antifa and looters etc from wearing masks? Maybe we can give protestors a pass, if they are non-violent. I would hate to limit ones’ 1st amendment rights.
Next Antifa riot watch how many mask wearers get arrested
Multiple rubber bullet strikes would ensure some punishment. I bet that the number of rioters would drop steeply.
Seeking the vote of criminals and America haters. Another Democrat with no sense of morality, but a clear sense of cynicism in his zest for power. A budding authoritarian with no remorse.
What about that thing on Nancy Pelosi’s face?
That’s her face.
It was her abdomen before all the face lifts. She gives new meaning to the term “beard”
What an ahole. Seriously.
There will be little if any enforcement of this law. Any cop with any experience at all knows that if he tries to arrest an ICE agent for wearing a mask, he’s liable to face arrest himself for interfering with a federal officer during the course of duty.
I really can’t figure out if Newsom actually understands this and doesn’t care (because he got the donations he was after) or if he’s really that clueless about how law enforcement works.
It’s probably both.
It’s not about arresting ICE Agents but entirely about empowering the Democrat mob to attack them with, what they wil believe is impunity.
Democrats really are wanting someone to take the life of ICE Agents or get them to take the life of a Democrat so they can use that death for their own political needs (completely ignoring the fact that Democrats incited their mob to begin with).
“To ICE, unmask. What are you afraid of?”
Because unlike Democrats, we can think more than one move ahead.
We’re not humoring you idiots anymore in expectation of being able to tell you “we told you so” later. The stakes are now too high.
The degenerate Scott Weiner is the source of much evil in California. A Soros of the right would take him out of power.
Degenerate is too soft an adjective to describe Wiener, he is pure evil.
What ever happened turning down the deranged rhetoric, Weiner?
“As this authoritarian regime seeks to demolish our constitutional rights and engages in a straight up terror campaign, California is meeting the Trump Administration’s secret police tactics with strength and defiance.”
What a tool.
Read Title 8 loser.
This conflict gets interesting. If state law enforcement tries to arrest ICE agents, what then? Does ICE submit or fight back? Trump needs to protect ICE from state interference or he loses credibility both domestically and internationally. Trump can’t back down. Do we end up with a shoot out between CA state authority and federal authority? This is the stuff of civil war with some states siding with CA and others siding with the feds. I suspect the conflict will end up in the courts. Ultimately SCOTUS. We have a divided nation in a cold civil war threatening to turn hot.
Let’s also not forget that Europe is watching. It too has a major conflict over migration with UK, France and Germany as the major players. All the more reason for Trump not to back down. If he squashes CA that will encourage the Reform Party in the UK (Farage), Le Pen in France, and Alice Weidel (AfD) in Germany.
This is well-settled law. Federal law enforcement officers are immune from state prosecution when they’re executing their legal federal authority. This has been challenged a number of times, probably most famously (in recent history) in the aftermath of the Ruby Ridge fiasco. State prosecutors attempted to prosecute the FBI agents who shot and killed the mother and child during that engagement. The Federal Appeals court held, based on prior Supremacy Clause precedent, that the federal agents were immune from state prosecution because they were clearly acting within the scope of their federal authority.
Fairly sure any attempt by local law enforcement to enforce this against Feds will end peacefully, but poorly for the local LE. FedLE is not going to accept this kind of abuse. The chain will probably look like this:
-LocalLE arrests FedLE – Starts to take him to the station:
–Option 1: LocalLE will encounter an intelligent supervisor who will make LocalLE uncuff the Fed, force him to apologize to the Fed, and request respectfully for the idiot LocalLE not to be charged.
–Option 2: LocalLE encounters a supervisor who approves of the arrest, and the process continues up the line until a Fed judge orders the Fed officer into his court. At that point *every* LocalLE who was involved in the arrest, up and down the chain, will be dragged into Federal court and face Federal charges, most likely held without bail facing charges that will make it impossible for them to hold a LE position afterwards.
The LocalLE officers know this. That’s why they’re not going to make career-ending decisions merely to make local politicians happy.
They won’t. They know better. If one does, he gets arrested and charged with a federal offense.
Challenge accepted! ICE leadership needs to make sure all of it’s officers have riot gear including gas mask and multiple tear gas grenades when they go outside.
I think Gavin the retard should personally try to enforce this. I’d love to see his corrupt ass in jail.
This has no enforceable value. Am I wrong? They don’t have to listen to him.
This just in: ICE has declared itself a “sanctuary cadre” for masks.
Suck it up, Commiefornia.
A bunch of ICE agents should go eat at the French Laundry wearing Newsom masks.
A bunch of masked ICE agents should do a late night raid on Newsom’s home. You know, their anonymous source (wink, wink) said he was harboring illegal aliens in violation of federal law so they just needed to check it out to see if it were true or not.
No, that’s how you get bad press. What they really should do is a masked raid on some relative of Newsom who actually is harboring illegals.
So to clarify, Antifa, MS-13, and other Democrat supporting entities are fine to mask up, it’s just law enforcement officer doing their duty and obeying the Constitution that are targeted? Isn’t this unlawful discrimination?
No, it isn’t unlawful discrimination. There’s no law against discriminating on the basis of LEO status. There are many laws that discriminate in favor of LEOs, such as their exemption from most gun regulations.
There seems to be an idea out there that all discrimination is illegal. That is not true at all. All discrimination is lawful except on grounds specifically prohibited by law.
These are the bills Newsom signed:
This is fair enough. Like any government agent, ICE have no right to trespass without a warrant. Property owners can give them permission; here the state is forbidding schools that are owned by its own subdivisions from granting such permission. That’s entirely within its rights under the 10th amendment.
This may prove annoying for local LEO, but has no effect on ICE.
Again, this may prove annoying for local LEO, but has no effect on ICE.
Again, this is the state’s private property, and it has the right to refuse permission to anyone except a LEO with a warrant.
The second part seems the same as bills 49 and 81. But the first part seems a bit problematic. As far as I know it’s established law that warning others of police presence, so they can conform their behavior appropriately, is protected speech. But warning known fugitives of police presence so they can flee or hide may not be protected and can be seen as deliberate interference in law enforcement. This case is in between — the warning is for possible fugitives. The speaker doesn’t know for a fact that there are any in the building, they’re just giving a general warning. That’s probably not a crime, though it still may not be protected speech. I don’t know. But if it is illegal then state law can’t require people to commit a federal crime.
Especially in the case of hospitals, I’m not able to understand why you are claiming Bills 49 and 89 are acceptable because of some notion that California as a state has property rights in schools or hospitals. I don’t see any indication that any of the bills are restricted to *only* institutions where California could make that claim. Most health care facilities, and many many schools, are privately owned, and even in the case of schools those are generally not owned by the state government but by the various local school boards. I suspect the bills are drafted more broadly than you are claiming in order to hand-wave away objections to them. I think it is far more likely that California Democrats are trying to make a requirement that ICE obtain warrants from their state courts (if they can) which is going to run into the same jurisdictional problem all of the other bills have.
If it narrowly applied to State owned property… maybe, so on Univ California campuses and State owned healthcare facilities, State Parks, State office buildings sure. Generally the local School District owns the property/buildings. Additionally most hospitals/healthcare facilities are not publicly owned. Not sure about how this attempted blanket exclusion of Federal LEO would work either; there’s an implied licence to enter and remain. Couldn’t I achieve the same effect as CA by publishing a notice in the paper of record to withdraw the implied licence from LEO and IMO it would just as worthless. Now can someone with executive authority over a property confront LEO and tell them to leave if there’s no warrant? Absolutely but IMO, that’s on an individual basis for each event.
I see not reason why the federal givernment should give any federal monies to any sanctuary state or city.
They can do anything they want. The feds don’t have to subsidize it.
Shut off law enforcement and education grants. Any monies that the givernment controls should be stopped where lawfully allowed.
Stop all grants to colleges, stop the use of the GI Bill, stop all use of military tuition assistance.
Break them financially.
But more important. FLOOD THE ZONE.
Send in ICE full scale. Make it the invasion that the left claims. Show them what an invasion really looks like.
He must want more MAGA — because this is how you get more MAGA.
“To ICE, unmask. What are you afraid of?” Oh, I don’t know. Doxing, arson, assault, murder. Their masks are for their and their families’ protection.
Ever wonder why local authorities don’t arrest the federal tax collector for trespassing? Because of 28 USC 1442. The DoJ would swoop into the court and remove the agent to a federal court.
Newsom is blowing smoke and he knows it.