Breaking the Ice: How the “No Secret Police Act” Represents the Broader Campaign against Trump’s Immigration Policies

Governor Newsom signing four bills into law aimed at restraining Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) within California, via his website.

On September 20, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) signed into law the “No Secret Police Act,” which prohibits law enforcement officers—especially those part of the Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE)—from wearing masks to conceal their identity. The law, accompanied by four other bills that seek to restrict ICE’s operations in California, was posited as a “direct response” to President Donald Trump’s “lawless immigration raids and arrests,” said Governor Newsom via X.

Cristine Soto DeBerry, Executive Director of Prosecutors Alliance Action, an organization that advocates for criminal justice reform, thanked Governor Newsom for signing the law, saying it made “every Californian safer.” She also highlighted a “victory for transparency, accountability, and community trust.” Similarly, State Senator Scott Wiener (D-CA), who introduced the bill, applauded the governor and said the act was a “bold step” in defending “immigrant communities and democracy itself” against what he calls a “straight up terror campaign” by the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies.

However, administration officials have simultaneously degraded the legislation as an illegal and feeble attempt at countering a historic immigrant crackdown. For example, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli, appointed by President Trump in July 2025, has been a vocal critic of the law. “We’re not going to follow it,” Essayli stated, “The State of California has no jurisdiction to regulate anything that we do in the federal government and I've instructed our agents to disregard it.” Furthermore, Tricia McLaughlin, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs, also opposed the bill even before it became law. In an official statement released four days prior to its signing, DHS called the bill “despicable” and added that this law would put “[federal officers] and their families at risk of being doxxed and targeted by vicious criminals.”

And while President Trump has not responded himself, his administration has strongly defended the use of masks for immigration agents, citing that obscuring their identities is necessary for their safety and the effective performance of their duties.

Ultimately, the legality of this bill will be challenged, since it’s unclear to what extent a state law may regulate federal immigration enforcement operations. Still, the “No Secret Police Act” marks a crucial step in the string of state and city opposition that ICE has faced since Trump’s return to the White House. In July 2025, Governor Matt Meyer (D-DE), like Governor Newsom, signed a similarly spirited bill limiting ICE’s actions within his state, including mandating local law enforcement to terminate their relationships with ICE. Overall, 12 states have enacted some kind of policy aimed at severing local enforcement partnerships with ICE.

Several states have also taken legal action against the administration’s rapid expansion of ICE and its influence across the nation. New York Attorney General Letitia James, for example, led an amicus brief along with 19 other attorneys general from states across the country, from Arizona to Minnesota to Rhode Island. The brief was filed in the class-action lawsuit Bautista v. Noem, where civil rights organizations, like the American Civil Liberties Union, challenge the Trump administration’s tentative ICE detention policy of denying bond hearings to immigrants who entered the country illegally. 

More recently, the Trump administration has been engaged in high-profile legal battles in Illinois and Oregon. In both instances, President Trump has tried to deploy the National Guard to Chicago and Portland, both of which he has described as “living in hell.” According to the administration, the National Guard troops are intended to protect ICE facilities amid ongoing protests in both cities. 

However, lately, the Trump Administration has found itself on the unfortunate end of federal court orders. On October 5, 2025, a federal judge in Oregon temporarily blocked the deployment while a separate lawsuit challenging the legality of the deployment itself plays out. Not even a week later, on October 11, a federal appeals court ruled against the Trump Administration’s request for immediate deployment of National Guard troops in Illinois, allowing a lower court’s order blocking the mobilization to remain in place while the lawsuit proceeds.

Governor JB Pritzker (D-IL) has been critical of President Trump’s rhetoric and actions regarding the National Guard deployment, saying he is “using our service members as political props and as pawns in his illegal effort to militarize our nation’s cities.” Meanwhile, Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago has called on residents to “push back against tyranny” via peaceful protests and judicial proceedings. 

Critically, Chicago and Portland are sanctuary cities, meaning they limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities such as ICE. Recently, these cities have been targeted by the Trump Administration and its intense immigration campaign. “You can expect action in most sanctuary cities across the country,” Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, said in a CNN interview early in September 2025. Mayor Michelle Wu of Boston, another sanctuary city that has gained the president’s ire, has spoken out against the administration’s aims, saying ICE “does not make our community safer,” while urging that Boston “will not yield” to any legal efforts challenging the city’s immigration policies.

Even though it was a California law, the “No Secret Police Act” is a microcosm of an intense political cause that spans the country. While the Trump Administration defends ICE’s policies as necessary in upholding civil order and federal processes, several states and cities challenge that reasoning, showing their willingness to confront the administration through the courts or their own statehouses. Given the personal nature of immigration, millions of Americans, both citizens and noncitizens, are closely watching the ongoing legal battle over ICE, its authority, and the extent to which it can be limited. Governor Newsom, talking about the broader objective behind the law, said, “we have the right to push back to stand up…that’s what we’re doing.”