Fact check: What were the key differences in ICE mask policies under Trump and Biden?

1. How the Trump-era posture set the baseline for mask use — and why it matters

Reporting and analyses indicate that during the Trump administration, ICE personnel were regularly allowed to wear masks in enforcement operations, with senior leadership — specifically Acting Director Todd Lyons in 2025 commentary — stating he would permit the practice due to officer-safety concerns even if not personally favoring it ^{[1] [2]}. This permissive operational baseline matters because it established a federal practice that interplays with state laws and public scrutiny: critics argue masked agents risk impersonation and lack of accountability, while the agency and its defenders say masks shield agents who face increased risks, creating a security-versus-transparency tension that carries legal and political consequences ^{[2] [4]}.

2. State-level reactions crystallize into law: California and the unmasking push

In 2025 several state lawmakers moved decisively against masked ICE operations, with California passing a statute banning ICE agents from wearing masks to hide their identities, a measure signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom and effective amid a broader national push to require identity disclosure during stops and raids ^{[3] [4]}. State action reframes the issue as a clash between state torts, public-safety norms, and federal prerogatives, prompting immediate questions about enforceability and federal preemption when federal officers operate on state soil; authorities at the federal level publicly signaled noncompliance, heightening the potential for legal disputes ^{[3] [4]}.

3. Federal arguments for masks: officer safety and operational security

Federal officials defended the continued use of face coverings by pointing to a documented rise in threats and attacks on immigration personnel, citing the need for anonymity to protect officers and their families during sensitive operations. Agency statements framed masking as a narrowly tailored protective practice rather than a tool for obfuscation ^[2]. Those defenses influenced internal policy choices and created friction with external advocates and judges who warned that masking could facilitate imposters posing as agents and undermine public accountability during enforcement encounters ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Criticisms and legal concerns: impersonation, accountability, and public trust

Opponents — including some lawmakers, judges, and civil-rights advocates — emphasized that masked agents impede verification of law-enforcement identity, raising risks of impersonation and reducing avenues for redress ^{[2] [4]}. State laws and legislative proposals sought to codify identity-disclosure requirements precisely to prevent misuse of anonymity in enforcement settings. These critics framed mask use not as an operational necessity but as a practice that corrodes trust between communities and federal agents, pushing for statutory and judicial remedies to preserve transparency ^{[4] [2]}.

5. The Biden-era administrative context: legal conflicts and shifting enforcement posture

Analyses from 2025 place the unmasking debate squarely in the Biden-era context of renewed scrutiny and state pushback: while federal officials continued to defend masks on safety grounds, states advanced bans and Congress considered bills to force identity disclosure, creating a dynamic where federal enforcement posture confronted new statutory barriers and potential litigation ^{[3] [4]}. This phase reflects a transition from internal policy tolerance under earlier leadership toward a contested legal battleground where mask rules are defined not solely by ICE but by state legislatures and federal courts ^[4].

6. What the COVID-era detention reporting adds — and what it doesn’t

Investigations into ICE detention during the COVID-19 pandemic documented operational secrecy, health risks, and administrative failures, highlighting longstanding concerns about transparency in immigration enforcement settings ^{[6] [7]}. However, those reports did not directly compare mask policies between presidential administrations, leaving a gap: the pandemic-era findings underline why identity and accountability matter, but they do not establish detailed federal policy differences on face coverings across Trump and Biden periods, so linking COVID-era secrecy to mask policy requires cautious inference rather than direct evidence ^{[8] [6]}.

7. Bottom line: law, safety, and unresolved jurisdictional fights

The available sources converge on a few concrete points: under Trump-era operational practice ICE agents were permitted to wear masks; by 2025 states like California enacted bans and Congress considered mandates to unmask; federal officials defended masks on safety grounds, setting up a jurisdictional and legal conflict between federal operational prerogative and state-driven transparency reforms ^{[1] [3] [4]}. The essential unresolved question is judicial enforceability and whether federal supremacy will override state bans — a matter likely decided in courts or through federal legislation rather than administrative fiat ^{[3] [4]}.