Virtue-signaling garbage.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s move to block law enforcement officers from wearing masks during immigration operations is already facing legal scrutiny, with critics arguing the state has no authority over federal agents.
Newsom, a Democrat, signed the bill over the weekend, banning state and federal officers from covering their faces while on duty. The law, set to take effect in January, drew immediate rebuke from Trump administration officials, who called it unenforceable.
“We don’t need to abide by this garbage,” a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said on social media.
Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli of the Central District of California told Fox & Friends Monday that he expected Newsom to take the issue to court.
“I think what the governor might do is he might file a lawsuit,” Essayli said. “He might run to a judge to try to get some sort of order, but we’re very confident. The State of California does not and cannot have jurisdiction.”
Acting U.S Attorney in California Bill Essayli just went on Fox News and absolutely EMBARRASSED Gavin Newsom after he signed an executive order and had a whole press conference over the weekend "banning" ICE officers from wearing masks and demanding they ID themselves.
"The… pic.twitter.com/wOBU6FRk4p
— DeVory Darkins (@devorydarkins) September 22, 2025
The measure is part of a broader package of bills aimed at countering the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement. Federal authorities in recent months have carried out raids at farms, car washes, and other sites across California, with agents often using masks and neck gaiters to conceal their identities.
“Unmarked cars, people in masks, people quite literally disappearing, no due process, no rights,” Newsom said. “I’ll be signing a bill, the first in the nation, saying, ‘Enough, ICE, unmask, what are you afraid of?’”
Legal experts said the measure will likely run up against constitutional limits. Neama Rahmani, a California attorney and former federal prosecutor, told Fox News Digital that courts would likely cite the Supremacy Clause, which gives federal law priority over conflicting state measures.
Rahmani said that while states can impose “reasonable restrictions” on federal law enforcement, such as traffic violations, dictating what the officers wear is different.
“You have the state imposing restrictions on the federal government, and those restrictions can really unduly interfere with their law enforcement functions, right?” Rahmani said. “The state is saying that unmasking these federal officials is necessary to restore public trust, but really it’s a safety issue, right? They can be doxed. Their families can be put at risk, so I can easily see this specific regulation being struck down by the courts.”
Hey, Gav — if you want to regulate federal agents, you have to win a federal election.