this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2025
683 points (99.7% liked)

News

32520 readers
4109 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Local and federal agents, including immigration officials, may not wear masks while conducting official business

California will be the first state to ban most law enforcement, including federal immigration agents, from covering their faces while conducting official business under a bill signed by the state’s governor, Gavin Newsom, on Saturday.

The ban is California’s direct response to a recent series of immigration raids in Los Angeles where federal agents wore masks while making mass arrests. The raids prompted protests and led Donald Trump to deploy national guard troops and marines to the city.

It’s unclear how – or whether – the state can enforce the ban on the federal agents who have been carrying out those raids. A homeland security official called the legislation “despicable” in a statement this week, adding that the ban would only put officers in danger.

top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] etchinghillside@reddthat.com 70 points 1 week ago (4 children)

It makes exceptions for undercover agents, medical masks such as N95 respirators or tactical gear. It doesn’t apply to state police.

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 49 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So then they just call it tactical gear

[–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, this sounds pretty toothless.

[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago

.............or they won't qualify under the law. How about seeing literally any language first, before bitching like fucking stereotypical progressives?

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

So exceptions for basically everyone that shouldn't be, typical

[–] Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

Well, it's hard to strike the right balance.

Obviously an undercover officer posing as a car painter in a longitudinal sting can't really say "I'm not allowed to wear that mask".

Although, he could pretend he was MAGA and an anti-masker.

In any case, some reasonable exceptions are warranted. Tactical gear isn't one of them.

And we all know what "reasonable" means to MAGA.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 week ago

The new law prohibits neck gators, ski masks and other facial coverings for local and federal officers, including immigration enforcement agents, while they conduct official business.

So unless they have tactical gas masks on, I would say this is definitely good progress.

[–] MangioneDontMiss@feddit.nl 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

so this is basically useless bullshit.

[–] thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] MangioneDontMiss@feddit.nl 1 points 1 week ago

he does a lot of that

[–] desmosthenes@lemmy.world 39 points 1 week ago

bet a bunch of these were the “I can’t breath” folk with medical face masks

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago (3 children)

suddenly ICE raids drop by %50 in California

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago

Monkey Paw: They send in the tanks, don't even need a mask.

On July 4, 2026, in Lafayette Square, D.C., nothing happened.

[–] ProfThadBach@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (3 children)

How is this going to be enforced? If the cops are not standing there arresting face covered ICE agents then this means nothingh.

[–] p3n@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

If it is well known that it is illegal for law enforcement officers to wear masks, and there is an armed man wearing a mask who is threatening a group of people, it would be reasonable to assume they are not a law enforcement officer and a shooting could be justified in self-defense.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well I think that's basically the goal.

[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What is? Not being enforceable, or standing at ICE raids and arresting them?

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Demanding ice agents remove masks and arresting them if they fail to comply.

[–] lemmylump@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

The way I see it is if some fuck is wearing a mask and trying to arrest me, that's not a cop, that's a kidnapper and I'm not sticking around or I'm fighting back with lethal force.

Cops don't wear masks criminals do.

[–] lemmylump@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

To think 5 years ago you couldn't get these fucks to put a mask on., now they're "in danger".

Stop breaking the law asshole.gif

[–] JackFrostNCola@aussie.zone 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Would put officers in danger not having masks on?
I would think that if the general public wants to stop or dissuade them from executing these orders that perhaps its the laws that are wrong? If society at large disagrees with the current law of the land, then who is these law benefiting or protecting? The fragile & scared.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago

You were right the first time; They’re not laws, they’re orders and statements that are all illegal.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 6 points 1 week ago

Homeland Security officials can stick their "despicable" into their bum hole. They are evil jackasses, and have no right to oppose people wanting due process from their nation.

I think California police should just take a flight over the HLS Chief's home, put him in cuffs, and press charges. It would be no less illegal than what he's allowed to happen, and possibly that fucking Despicable statement.