It began with what seemed like a kidnapping.
Andrea Velez had just been dropped off for work in Los Angeles by her mother when a group of masked men in plain clothes approached, grabbed her, and threw her into the back of their unmarked vehicle.
Her terrified mother, who was still in the car, immediately placed a call to 911 to report a kidnapping.
“They tackled her with no warning,” said Hector Villagra, vice president for policy advocacy and community education with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF). “They were not wearing uniforms. There was no agency identification. There was no visible ID or badge on them. They wore [neck] gaiters, sunglasses and hats.”
Villagra said it was later determined that Velez, a U.S. citizen, had been detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, for allegedly interfering with an immigration raid occurring almost 30 feet away from her.
Caught in the middle of the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement policies, Velez was forced to spend two nights in jail and faced a felony charge that the Justice Department later dropped.
“This incident in particular really jumped out at us,” said Villagra. “In many ways, it crystallized the threat to public safety from unregulated law enforcement activity.”
The case also helped inspire a new law, Senate Bill 627, also known as “The No Secret Police Act.” It was co-sponsored by MALDEF and was signed into law by California Governor Gavin Newsom in September.
It’s one of two California laws taking effect January 1, 2026, that prohibit most law enforcement officers from concealing their identity when performing their duties. The Trump administration is now challenging this law in court.
Since the law’s passage, other jurisdictions have considered similar measures, including L.A. County. In December, county supervisors voted to move forward with a proposed ordinance that would bar law enforcement officers in unincorporated areas of the county from concealing their identities.
‘We’re not going to follow it’
The No Secret Police Act would criminalize law enforcement officials’ use of face coverings while performing their duties. Exceptions are made for the California Highway Patrol, SWAT team members, undercover officers and those who must wear masks for health reasons.
Authored by California Sen. Scott Wiener, SB 627 is the first law enacted in the nation to prohibit law enforcement officials from covering their faces while on duty.
“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,” Wiener wrote in a statement. “No one wants masked officers roaming their communities and kidnapping people with impunity.”
And yet, they are. Despite California’s attempts, the Trump administration has made it clear that it has no intention of complying with California’s new regulations regarding federal law enforcement agents.
“We’re not going to follow it,” Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli told CBS News. “The law has no force or effect on federal agencies. The State of California has no jurisdiction to regulate anything that we do in the federal government, and I’ve instructed our agents to disregard it.”
The administration filed suit against California in mid-November, alleging that the anti-mask law is unconstitutional, along with another new state law that requires federal agents who are not in uniform to display identification visibly.
This came after the FBI issued a three-page memo to police agencies last month, urging law enforcement officials to clearly identify themselves during law enforcement activities, according to a WIRED article.
The FBI, in the bulletin, cited incidents of masked criminals posing as law enforcement agents, which “damages trust” between agents and the communities they serve. Some of these masked impostors have conducted robberies, kidnappings and assaults.
Supporters of the new California laws say these would act as further safeguards for the public.
“It’s deeply concerning that the Trump Administration is suing California for requiring precisely what the FBI is urging,” co-author of SB 627, State Senator Jesse Arreguín, said in a statement responding to the federal lawsuit. “This law protects both the public and legitimate officers: When armed operatives walk into our communities, obscuring their face, badge and name, the public’s trust is broken – and that poses a risk to everyone. That risk is significantly heightened when there are known impersonators exploiting ICE’s propensity to withhold their identity.”
How California’s no-mask rule would work
While the Trump administration remains defiant, MALDEF’s Villagra is confident that what’s become known as the “No Mask Mandate” is enforceable. He explained that “there has been a lot of misunderstanding about how the bill will operate once it goes into effect.”
Officers who are found to violate the no-mask mandate can be tried criminally, he said, if it is found that their actions were both in violation of federal law and unnecessary to carry out federal duties.
“In situations where those two things are true, there have been prosecutions of federal officers under state law,” Villagra said.
The district attorney would have the authority to bring criminal charges against a particular law enforcement officer who violates the policy, he explained. This officer would then be tried in federal court, where a jury would deliberate whether the agent’s actions were authorized by federal law and necessary to carry out federal duties.
“The criminal provision really is intended to provide a very powerful incentive for law enforcement agencies to develop a policy on the use of facial coverings or masks in accordance with the general guidelines of the bill,” said Villagra.
According to the no-mask mandate, law enforcement agencies have until July 1 of next year to develop a mask policy. As long as agencies create a specific policy regarding face coverings, the criminal provision no longer applies to officers who violate the state policy. Instead, that violation now becomes an internal disciplinary matter within the agency.
If law enforcement agencies neglect to establish their own policies regulating mask use among officials, then the criminal penalties will apply if one of their officers violates the state law, Villagra said
“We have only heard from the federal government that they have no intention of abiding. So our assumption is that they will not develop a policy,” said Villagra. “In that case, the criminal provision would be applicable.”
The second aspect of the No Secret Police Act is a civil damages provision, the “more potent provision of the bill,” as Villagra describes it.
Under this provision, any person who is a victim of an ICE raid conducted by masked agents would be able to seek civil damages of at least $10,000 from the federal government.
“What we’ve done is say if the false imprisonment or false arrest is carried out by an agent who is masked, the terrorizing effect of that is such that the damages are going to be presumed to be at least $10,000,” he said. “We think that that should be perfectly legal within the confines of the Federal Tort Claims Act and case law regarding it.”
Anyone currently seeking an injunction against these masked ICE raids would be eligible to seek further damages under the FTCA and the bill once it is in effect.
“Federal officers operating in a state are not immune to said state’s laws,” said Villagra.
For its part, the Trump administration has reiterated in the recently filed lawsuit that “the Federal Government does not intend to comply with the challenged laws.”
The lawsuit acknowledges that law enforcement officers “face a real threat of criminal liability” under the new California statutes, and seeks to enjoin the state from enforcing them.
ICE and the Department of Homeland Security have not responded to requests for comment.