Sign up for the Today newsletter
Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.
Readers disapprove of ICE agents wearing masks. Here’s why.
“It all comes down to accountability,” one of over 780 respondents said.
A bill filed by a Massachusetts lawmaker to prohibit law enforcement officers — including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents — from covering their faces is favored by hundreds of Boston.com readers.
On Monday, State Rep. James Hawkins, a Democrat representing Attleboro, filed HD.4886 to prevent local, state, or federal law enforcement officers in the Commonwealth from wearing “any mask or personal disguise while interacting with the public in the performance of their duties.”
Exceptions would be given for medical masks and for SWAT teams, and officers would also be required to display their “name or badge number on their uniforms.” Violating the proposed law would result in a misdemeanor.
Advertisement:
While the bill does not name ICE specifically, Hawkins told Boston.com he felt pulled to file the bill after hearing about ICE arrests in his city of Attleboro, on top of outrage over the arrests of students Rümeysa Öztürk and Marcelo Gomes da Silva.
“These are things that are important and damn, that’s worth it. This isn’t a quiet bill, but that’s why I’m doing this. When I see something that’s bothering me, I have to do something,” he said in a phone interview.
Hawkins said he believes the use of masks by ICE agents instills fear in communities rather than trust, and exhibits a lack of accountability.
Advertisement:
“What do they have to hide?,” he said.
When we asked readers to weigh in on ICE agents wearing masks, 60% (471 readers) of the 784 respondents said they strongly disapproved, while 32% (253 readers) said they strongly approved. Just 8% of readers combined fell in the middle.
“Just as police show their faces during an arrest, ICE agents should be required to clearly identify themselves and have their faces visible,” reader Nancy O. from Marblehead said.
Phil S. from Waltham agreed, underscoring that “transparency and accountability are essential — law enforcement should serve openly and honestly, not in secrecy or deception.”
Others said banning masks doesn’t go far enough.
“They should also be wearing body cams and identifying themselves. There is no need to hide your identity if you are performing your job correctly and legally,” reader Charles L. from Newburyport said.
In response to the criticism, Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said at a June press conference that agents covered their faces for their safety. Safety was a common concern among readers who said they strongly approve of agents wearing masks.
“They need to hide their identity. This is dangerous work they are involved in and deserve to protect themselves,” Jane from Essex County said.
Advertisement:
Hawkins’ bill joins a handful of others emerging across the country: On June 13, New York Rep. Nydia Velazquez filed the “No Masks for ICE Act”; on June 16, Sens. Scott Wiener (D–San Francisco) and Jesse Arreguín (D–Berkeley) filed the “No Secret Police Act”; and on Tuesday, U.S. Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Alex Padilla (D-CA) filed the “Visible Identification Standards for Immigration-Based Law Enforcement (VISIBLE) Act of 2025.”
Below, readers from across a spectrum of opinions share why the disapprove or approve of ICE agents wearing masks while working.
Responses have been lightly edited for grammar and clarity.
To what extent do you approve or disapprove of ICE agents covering their faces during detentions and arrests?
I strongly disapprove
“It all comes down to accountability. These ICE agents are covering their faces because they don’t want to be associated with their actions – and that is perhaps an understandable desire. I certainly wouldn’t want to be associated with those actions, were I them. But we live in a democratic society – for now. Every law enforcement officer is accountable to the people whom they purport to serve. My tax dollars – and yours – fund these people’s salaries. We should know what we’re getting. We should be able to see who exactly is performing these heinous acts. And we should be free to express our displeasure to these people in their day-to-day lives.” – Samantha S., Somerville
“Any form of policing needs to be done with transparency and accountability. Anyone doing their job should be protected, but they also need to be held accountable. Punish anyone who doxxes or assaults any officer, but masking reduces accountability and makes it easier for officers to take their actions too far.” – Jeff, Burlington
“Unless it’s a medical mask to shield an agent from illness, they shouldn’t be permitted to wear a mask, period. Frankly they should also be legally required to wear a uniform.” – Kaz Z., Malden
“Accountability in any type of service work is a cornerstone value. If someone does a bad job, makes a bad call, or needs to be corrected in some way, there must be a way to identify the person who is responsible and whose actions need to be addressed. When law enforcement is carried out in high-stakes, sometimes aggressive, and often unexpected ways, it is important to know who is performing what actions and why. In addition to all of this, law enforcement must be easily identified to prevent impostors from acting as agents of the state for other reasons, and to ensure that civil liberties afforded to all people in the United States are afforded properly.” – Daniel H., Somerville
“There absolutely should be clear expectations on uniforms and how people identify themselves. ICE claiming to be the ‘police’ breaks any nascent good will between local law enforcement officers and the community. Do you want community members to feel safe disclosing information? Do you want victims of crimes to feel safe seeking help? Neither will happen if police and ICE are interchangeable.” – Meg, Cambridge
“There should definitely be standard uniforms with visible badges, names, and face requirements for all federal immigration agents so there is no confusion about the validity of their official role.” – Jane, Belmont
I somewhat disapprove
“If they want to protect their face over security concerns, they should also be required to wear a uniform with all relevant insignia as well as a badge with their first and last name and employee ID number readily visible.” – L.S., Cambridge
“We should reduce the ability for everyone to cover/disguise their face, including citizens – there are too many people walking around in 90 degree weather with their faces covered. There’s a reason why no coverings are allowed in banks, even though the majority aren’t looking to do something nefarious. Police are mandated to identify themselves and their salaries are public information, if they want increased privacy then take a non-civil servant role.” – Matt D., Dorchester
“The vast majority of law enforcement officers do not hide their faces. If ICE feels they need to hide their faces, then it seems to be a clear indication that they know their actions are questionable and potentially illegal.” – Jeff, Framingham
I’m neutral
“I believe that masks are a clear indicator as to the level of transparency and integrity with which the organization is currently operating under.” – Guillermo, Metrowest Boston
“They are performing their orders. The legislator should do his.” – E.T.R., Wilbraham
I somewhat approve
“Not a huge fan of police, armed forces, federal agents or ice etc. covering their faces. But the knife cuts both ways. If we make it illegal for them to not cover their faces then we need to make it illegal for demonstrators as well. We do need to get in control of our streets and enforce the law that is in place. If the law is wrong, change it. Don’t dox or publish the names of officials. Don’t firebomb the people that are asked to enforce the laws of this country.” – L., Falmouth
“If agents have been threatened then I think some form of hiding their identity should be approved. I’m not crazy about the mask thing but considering some of the rhetoric coming from local politicians, especially the mayor, some form of identity protection might be appropriate. Please remember these folks are only enforcing federal law and we are at this point for a reason. Either enforce the law or change it” – Peter, Dorchester
“I don’t like the idea of masked officers. It creates all sorts of community insecurity and danger. Anyone can utilize the same tactics and individuals will have no way to know if the masked individual is a legitimate government agent or a kidnapper. That said, I don’t see how officers could operate in this day and age, without that protection. Doxxing would be widespread and immediate. As such, I think masking may be necessary to carry out the job, but identification of some kind is absolutely necessary for public safety.” – David M., Boston
I strongly approve
“Protestors (both violent and peaceful) can wear them across cities and campuses without issue. With the current climate and the recent attacks on ICE agents, I do not see an issue. As long as they are presenting a badge/ID and identifying themselves when making inquiries and/or arrests, non issue.” – Larry F., South Shore
“I’m fine with it. There are too many angry people out there that would retaliate and target their families. All those protesters over the last many years wore them to hide their identity. Why not!” – Diane M., Dracut
“Federal agents should be free to do their jobs unencumbered by nuisance, state and local regulations.” – John P., Sudbury
Boston.com occasionally interacts with readers by conducting informal polls and surveys. These results should be read as an unscientific gauge of readers’ opinion.
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com