Recently, numerous articles and news-spreading accounts on X (formerly Twitter) claimed that California Governor Gavin Newsom had “officially BANNED ICE officers from wearing masks…starting next month.”

This law exists, but it’s not new, it’s difficult to enforce on federal agents, and ICE has the right to declare it will ignore it.

What actually happened: Newsom signed S.B. 627 — Months Ago

On September 28, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a package of “transparency and accountability” bills targeting immigration enforcement activities in California. One of these bills, S.B. 627, quickly became nicknamed the “No Secret Police Act.”

This law takes effect on January 1, 2026, which explains why the internet suddenly rediscovered it and described it as “starting next month.”

What is S.B. 627? 627 Prohibition

This law prohibits state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies operating in California—including ICE, Border Patrol, and DHS task forces—from covering their faces with:

ski masks

hoods

scarf

tactical cloth masks

unless they:

are working undercover

are protecting their identity in riot control situations

are using medical masks (e.g., N95, surgical masks)

are shielding from wildfire smoke or toxic air

The law also requires visible identification such as name tags or badge numbers during routine field operations.

Why Newsom said he signed this law

Newsom described the law as a human rights protection:

“This is like a science fiction anti-hell movie — cars without license plates, people wearing masks, people actually disappearing. That’s not us humans.”

He cited several high-profile incidents in 2024, in which masked federal agents in Los Angeles allegedly arrested immigrants without self-identification — an act that immigrant rights activists say reflects tactics used in authoritarian states.

For supporters, the law aims for transparency and accountability.

For critics, it’s just showmanship with no legal effect.

The Supreme Clause Issue: Why the Law Cannot Apply to ICE

Almost immediately after Newsom signed the bill, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) declared the same thing:

California cannot regulate federal agents.

The Fundamental Supreme Clause

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that federal law takes precedence over state law in any direct conflict. This principle is not ambiguous; it has been affirmed in key cases:

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): States cannot interfere with the functions of the federal government.

Arizona v. United States (2012): States cannot create or impede rules for the enforcement of federal immigration law.

According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the attempt to regulate the attire of federal agents in law enforcement operations is:

“A classic violation of the Supreme Clause of the Constitution.”

ICE’s response was swift and direct.

An ICE spokesperson was blunt:

“California has no jurisdiction over federal operations. ICE agents will continue to protect their identities.”

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the law:

“Unconstitutional, dangerous, and a disgusting PR stunt.”

And further:

“With a 1000% increase in personal information leaks, harassment, and physical assaults against our officers, we will not comply.”

In short:

ICE’s masks will not disappear.

Even if California police forces complied with the ban, federal agents would not – and could not be – legally compelled to do so.

Why Newsom passed a law he knew wouldn’t apply to ICE

Political analysts note that Newsom’s ban served symbolic and political purposes:

1. Reinforcing California’s “sanctuary state” identity

California has long positioned itself as the most immigrant-friendly state in the country.

In 2025, as Trump’s second-term immigration crackdown escalated—from mass deportations to Task Force raids on sanctuary cities—Newsom sought legislation to demonstrate resistance.

Even if unenforceable, the mask ban…

Newsom was allowed to say:

“We do not tolerate federal intimidation tactics.”

“We protect our immigrant community.”

“We oppose Trump’s authoritarianism.”

2. Appealing to California’s progressive voters

Newsom is widely considered a presidential candidate in 2028.

Policies that appeal to progressive voters—even if only symbolically—would bolster his national image.

3. Leaving a Gap for Local Law Enforcement

This law applies to:

California Traffic Police

Police Chiefs

Local Police Officers

State Jail Officers

Several counties (most notably Los Angeles County) have pushed for a separate mask ban for law enforcement, citing:

risk of misidentification

public trust

accountability concerns

Therefore, for local and state agencies, S.B. 627 has real effect.