U.S. Attorney Warns California’s Newsom Against Enforcing ICE Mask Ban

California Democrats have triggered a new constitutional clash with Washington after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law banning law enforcement officers—including federal agents—from wearing masks during official duties.

The law, pitched by Newsom as a “transparency” measure, prohibits officers from covering their faces except in limited scenarios such as riot control or public health emergencies. Progressives claimed it would prevent abuse and intimidation, allowing citizens to identify officers.

But federal officials quickly slammed the move as unconstitutional and dangerous. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) warned that the statute directly undermines federal standards, particularly for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who routinely conceal their identities during high-risk raids to protect themselves and their families.

U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, who serves the Central District of California, issued a blunt directive this week ordering federal agencies to ignore the state law.

“California has exactly zero authority to regulate federal officers,” Essayli wrote, invoking the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. “I have directed federal agencies to disregard this state law and adhere to federal law and agency policies.”

He went further, vowing criminal consequences for anyone who interferes with federal operations over the mask issue. “Any state official or private individual that unlawfully interferes or impedes federal law enforcement operations should be referred to my office for prosecution,” Essayli warned.

The confrontation sets the stage for another legal showdown between California’s Democrat leadership and President Donald J. Trump’s administration. During Trump’s first term, California became infamous for its “sanctuary state” policies, which obstructed ICE from detaining criminal aliens. Though courts upheld much of that law, unresolved questions about federal supremacy left the door open for new challenges.

This time, constitutional experts say California’s position is even weaker. “California can regulate its own law enforcement officers, but it cannot dictate how federal agents carry out federal law,” explained one UCLA law professor. “That’s a textbook example of where the Supremacy Clause applies.”

Supporters of Newsom’s law argue it is part of a broader push for police “accountability,” but critics contend it places federal officers in direct danger. ICE agents have increasingly faced doxxing threats from left-wing activists.

“This is about safety, plain and simple,” said one federal law enforcement official. “Agents have families. If their names and faces are exposed, they are at risk of retaliation.”

Newsom, who is widely believed to be setting up a presidential bid, has sharpened his attacks on Trump’s immigration agenda in recent weeks. He even compared a senior Trump official to a Nazi SS officer—rhetoric that fueled outrage across the conservative movement.

The law is scheduled to take effect in January, but lawsuits are expected before then. Essayli’s hardline directive signals that federal intervention could come swiftly, setting up yet another battle over whether California can defy the Constitution to score political points.