Trump admin takes California to court over Newsom’s ‘unconstitutional’ mask ban for federal agents

The DOJ sued California over new mask and ID laws for federal agents, arguing they violate the Supremacy Clause and endanger officers
PUBLISHED NOV 18, 2025
Gavin Newsom’s office blasted the lawsuit, with spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo criticizing the Trump administration and vowing to see the Department of Justice in court (Getty Images)
Gavin Newsom’s office blasted the lawsuit, with spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo criticizing the Trump administration and vowing to see the Department of Justice in court (Getty Images)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA: The Department of Justice slapped California with a lawsuit on Monday, November 17, targeting two new state laws that ban federal agents from wearing facial coverings and require them to identify themselves while on the job.

According to the lawsuit, California’s new rules violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

The Trump administration also argued that the state’s mask rules could put federal officers in danger. Court documents stated that the federal government “does not intend to comply.”

The top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, US Attorney Bill Essayli, announced on X, "Today we filed a lawsuit to strike down California's unconstitutional law aimed at unmasking the faces of our federal agents, which will allow criminals to dox them." He added, "Unconstitutional laws such as this one further endanger our brave men and women protecting our community." 



Newsom defends California ID laws as DOJ files suit over agent mask rules

Gov Gavin Newsom’s office fired back after hearing about the lawsuit. His spokesperson, Diana Crofts-Pelayo, told CBS News exactly what she thought of the legal challenge.

"If the Trump administration cared half as much about public safety as it does about pardoning cop-beaters, violating people's rights, and detaining US citizens and their kids, our communities would be much safer," she said in a statement. "We'll see the US Department of Justice in court."

Newsom signed not one, but two major bills in September.

The first, the No Secret Police Act, bans federal, state, and local officials from hiding their identities behind face coverings during operations. However, there are exceptions: the California Highway Patrol, undercover officers, SWAT members, and anyone who needs a mask for health or medical reasons. The federal lawsuit claims California is playing favorites, alleging the state is discriminating against federal agents while granting exemptions to its own personnel.

STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA - OCTOBER 22: California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks to reporters after he participated in a fireside chat at the California Economic Summit on October 22, 2025 in Stockton, California. Gov. Newsom answered questions about the Trump administration's plans to deploy border patrol officers and the National Guard to San Francisco. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
California Gov Gavin Newsom speaks to reporters after he participated in a fireside chat at the California Economic Summit on October 22, 2025, in Stockton, California (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

The second law, the No Vigilantes Act, goes into effect in January. It requires non-uniformed federal agents working in California to clearly display identification, including their agency and either a name or badge number.

California faces backlash after immigration raids by masked federal agents

California Democratic state senators pushed the aforementioned bills forward in June after federal agents were seen wearing face coverings during immigration enforcement operations across the state.

Both laws can impose criminal penalties on federal officers who fail to comply, a move that immediately raised alarms among law enforcement groups.

The California Association of Highway Patrolmen warned that the ban endangers officers and their families by removing their ability to protect their identities when necessary. State-level critics agreed, arguing that Sacramento is punishing local officers for the actions of federal agents.

The Department of Homeland Security in Washington blasted the bills before Newsom had even signed them. In a September post on X, they declared, "To be clear: We will NOT comply with Gavin Newsom's unconstitutional mask ban," labeling the law a "PR stunt."



This comes after New York Democratic Reps Dan Goldman and Adriano Espaillat introduced a federal version of the No Secret Police Act in June, aiming to ban facial coverings and require clear identification for federal officers and DHS agents when detaining people.

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.

GET BREAKING U.S. NEWS & POLITICAL UPDATES
STRAIGHT TO YOUR INBOX.

MORE STORIES

Among the guests were the pontiff’s older brother Lou Prevost and his wife Deborah, who were warmly welcomed by Trump in front of the assembled crowd.
56 minutes ago
McEnany’s comments come amid mounting speculation about potential Democratic contenders as the next presidential cycle begins to take shape
1 hour ago
In a November directive, Kristi Noem argued that conditions in South Sudan had sufficiently improved to justify ending Temporary Protected Status
2 hours ago
HUD Secretary Scott Turner slammed the 'massive abuse' of taxpayer dollars after a new report uncovered the 'questionable payments'
3 hours ago
Wiles made several eyebrow-raising comments, including verifying that Trump was on Epstein’s plane in a Vanity Fair profile
4 hours ago
New Mexico acts as the sole state to fully cover the lost federal aid, while California approves a $200 million stopgap to protect the most vulnerable
5 hours ago
One of Marjorie Taylor Greene's staffers said President Donald Trump yelled so loudly that everyone in her office could hear him
1 day ago
In a wide-ranging sit-down with CNN’s Manu Raju that aired Sunday on Inside Politics, the Pennsylvania Democrat argued that the overheated rhetoric has helped Democrats lose elections instead of winning them.
1 day ago
'(This) is money that could have been spent on infrastructure, hospitals and, more important, schools and cutting taxes,' Bruce Blakeman stated
1 day ago
Appearing on MSNBC’s 'The Weekend' on Sunday, Swalwell laid out what he described as potential tools Democrats may use should they regain control of the chamber next year.
1 day ago