U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers should be held to the same standards of transparent and accountable policing as state and local law enforcement, which require officers to have visible identification and allow face coverings only in limited circumstances. Deploying unidentifiable officers makes communities less safe by unnecessarily escalating tension in interactions between ICE, CBP, and community members; emboldening dangerous impersonators; and preventing accountability for misconduct.
What standards do state and local law enforcement agencies follow for identification and face coverings?
Across the country, most state and local officers are required to wear uniforms that include agency and/or personal identifiers and are restricted from wearing face coverings as part of police department policy. For example:
- South Dakota Highway Patrol: General Order 5.0301— “All uniformed members shall wear an approved insignia of the Highway Patrol on the Ike Jacket, winter and summer shirts, coat, and BDU’s.”
- 0305—“Individual name bars, of an approved type, shall be always worn by each uniformed member while in uniform, unless instructed otherwise by a supervisor.”
- Metropolitan Nashville Police Department in Tennessee: “The badge is a component part of the uniform, except for the utility uniform and lightweight jacket. When an employee is in uniform, it shall be worn in full view at all times, using the badge tab provided on the uniform apparel (e.g., shirt, blouse, outer garment, etc.).”
- “The nameplate and service emblem assembly is a component part of the uniform. When an employee is in uniform, it shall be worn in full view at all times, directly above the right breast pocket of the uniform shirt, or blouse, centered with the pocket button.”
- Fort Worth Police Department in Texas: General Order 314.10B—“Unless exceptions exist in this order, officers are strictly prohibited from wearing masks, hoods, or other face-concealment devices during forced entries and/or service of search/arrest warrants.”
Current and former law enforcement highlight the need for officer identification and the harm caused by widespread use of face coverings
- James McMahan, policy director for the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, during a January 13, 2026, hearing before the Washington state Senate:
- “Holding officers accountable for wrongdoing requires us to know who did the wrong.”
- Lt. Diane Goldstein (Ret.), a 21-year police veteran and executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership:
- “If we want concern for law and order to be taken seriously, then we must at the very least practice what we preach. When law enforcement abandons transparency, accountability and restraint, it fractures the very trust that gives us authority in the first place. Without that trust, we forfeit the moral high ground—and that opens the door to even more disorder, as we’ve seen in recent weeks.”
- David A. Doucet, a retired officer who served 25 years in the Rhode Island State Police:
- “As law enforcement officers, we have all faced threats of various types during our careers, so the fear of threats is a non-starter. So, to those agents who do choose to hide their face, you are not the secret police. This is the United States of America; we don’t have secret police here. We don’t need, nor do we want secret police here.”
- FBI bulletin in response to a rise in ICE impersonations and the need for officer identification:
- “Due to the recent increase in ICE enforcement actions across the country, criminal actors are using ICE’s enhanced public profile and media coverage to their advantage to target vulnerable communities and commit criminal activity. This not only affects the victims and communities but also has broader negative consequences on law enforcement agencies. These criminal impersonations make it difficult for the community to distinguish between legitimate officers conducting lawful law enforcement action and imposters engaging in criminal activity, which damages trust between the local community and law enforcement officers.”
- International Association of Chiefs of Police resolution recognizing the harms of face coverings and the need for visible identification:
- “WHEREAS, the use of face coverings and the absence of visible identification during enforcement operations can create confusion, fear, and mistrust among community members and responding agencies, potentially increasing operational risks and eroding public confidence; and WHEREAS, clearly visible agency affiliation and unique identifiers—such as badge numbers or alphanumeric codes—enhance both accountability and officer safety, and align with long-standing policing practices …”
- Gregory Maxwell, former member of the U.S. Coast Guard, in an op-ed about a maritime law enforcement boarding:
- “Law enforcement authority is strongest when it is visible, intelligible, and accountable. Clear identification, clearly defined jurisdiction, documented procedures, and reviewable decisions are not bureaucratic burdens; they are safeguards. They protect civilians from arbitrary power, and they protect officers by grounding their actions in law rather than impulse. … When law enforcement departs from clear identification, transparent authority, and accountability, public trust erodes—regardless of the cause being pursued. Ends do not legitimize means. Only conduct does.”
How do legislators, attorneys general, and the American public view the widespread lack of identification and use of face coverings?
- New Jersey State Sen. Jon Bramnick (R) on a bipartisan New Jersey bill to restrict the use of face coverings by law enforcement:
- “This legislation is not about hindering law enforcement from doing its job. It is about reinforcing trust, clarity, and professionalism while allowing for reasonable exceptions when safety or sensitive operations truly require them.”
- Coalition of State Attorneys General in a letter to Congress:
- “‘ICE’s opaque conduct is in stark contrast to traditional practices that highlight accountability and transparency in our law enforcement system. The concealment of officers’ identities limits the ability of individuals to challenge unlawful government acts, stripping our citizens of their basic rights to hold government actors accountable. Indeed, the lack of clear identification contradicts federal standards for law enforcement conduct, which stipulate that at the time of arrest, an immigration officer “shall, as soon as it is practical and safe to do so[,] [i]dentify himself or herself as an immigration officer who is authorized to make the arrest.’ 8 C.F.R. 287.8(c)(2)(iii).”
Conclusion
Congress must ensure that ICE and CBP officers are unmasked and provide appropriate identification when deployed in communities to better protect public safety and enhance accountability. Congress should prohibit federal law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings to conceal their faces and identities—with exceptions for health, environmental, and operational hazards and for protection of undercover officers. Furthermore, Congress should require federal law enforcement officers conducting public enforcement action to wear uniforms that clearly identify the officer’s agency and provide a personal identifier, such as a name or badge number. Officers must also be required to provide this information upon request.
Read about necessary steps to reform the Department of Homeland Security