California Governor Gavin Newsom has taken a bold step by signing a series of laws aimed at curbing federal immigration enforcement within the state, with the most contentious being SB 627—dubbed the No Secret Police Act. This law, set to take effect on January 1, 2026, prohibits federal and local officers, including those from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), from wearing masks that conceal their identity, except for undercover operations, medical reasons, and tactical assignments. The law does not apply to California's own police forces.
The legislation was introduced by State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), known for his progressive policies, and has been hailed by Newsom's office as "the nation's strongest" law of its kind. In defending the law, Newsom described it as a stand against federal overreach, stating, "We have the right to stand up and push back. This is a disgrace, this is an outrage." Proponents argue that it will ensure accountability and transparency of officers operating in the state.
However, the swift reaction from federal authorities, led by Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, made it clear that California cannot dictate federal operations. Essayli took to social media, asserting that "California has no jurisdiction over the federal government" and instructed federal agencies to disregard the mandates. He also suggested that masked members of Antifa would likely not be subject to the law's enforcement.
The law's opponents argue it is more symbolic than practical, potentially endangering ICE officers by making them identifiable targets. This concern is underscored by the increase in harassment and doxxing of federal personnel and their families, a trend that has escalated since the Trump administration's immigration enforcement policies.
Legal experts point to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from regulating federal actions, indicating that SB 627 may not be enforceable and could leave officers vulnerable. The federal pushback not only underscores the practical limits of state legislation but also highlights the ongoing tension between California's progressive aspirations and constitutional authority.
Observers have noted that this law fits a pattern in Newsom's governance, reminiscent of strict COVID-era mandates that prioritized visibility over practicality. Critics cite instances such as the closure of Orange County beaches despite low risk, contrasted with Newsom's own maskless dining at exclusive restaurants.
As the effective date of SB 627 draws closer, the conflict between California and federal officials emphasizes the challenges states face in exerting influence over federal enforcement. While Newsom presents the legislation as a defense for residents, the refusal of federal authorities to comply illustrates that state mandates cannot supersede federal law and may unintentionally compromise the safety and anonymity of officers on duty.
