Trump was embarrassed by the large number of demonstrators in Los Angeles who donned masks or other forms of face concealing in opposition to his immigration crackdown.
Trump said on Twitter, “MASKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to be worn at protests,” and he went on to say that protestors who wore masks should be arrested.
Protesters and others who support them claim that Trump is trying to silence popular opposition with his remarks and the frequent demands of his Republican associates to prohibit masks at demonstrations. They point out that there is a double standard because police officers in Los Angeles and other cities have been known to engage demonstrators while covering their faces. A number of ICE officers have been seen conducting high-profile raids in locations like Los Angeles while concealed behind masks.
Therefore, it’s reasonable to wonder if a lip covering can actually shield people’s right to free expression. The answer, according to protesters, is a resounding yes. According to many attorneys, the case will inevitably end up back in court.
I want to know, “What are these people hiding, and why?”
Protests, including allegations of destruction and violence toward police, were provoked by immigration sweeps; following this, Trump published an article demanding a ban on masks.
To what end are these individuals hiding, and why?” he inquired on Truth Social on June 8.
The following day, Trump became enraged by the anti-ICE demonstrations and demanded the arrest of everybody wearing face masks.
The concept is not novel. There has been a recent uptick in legislation prohibiting the use of masks by protestors, which has raised concerns among legal professionals and supporters of the First Amendment about potential restrictions on free speech and privacy in the face of increased government monitoring.
Legislation to prohibit the use of face masks by federal agents and local police officers was filed by Democratic politicians in California, further complicating the legal matter. That was in response to worries that ICE officers were trying to cover their tracks in order to evade punishment for wrongdoing.
“The recent federal operations in California have created an environment of profound terror,” stated Scott Wiener, a state senator, in media release.
Tricia McLaughlin, an assistant secretary for homeland security, criticized the California measure, calling it “despicable.”
According to McLaughlin, “a sanctuary politician is trying to outlaw officers wearing masks to protect themselves from being doxed and targeted by known and suspected terrorist sympathizers”—a move that comes at a time when ICE officers are being attacked by rioters and thrown rocks and Molotov cocktails.
Prohibition of face masks by the state
According to Elly Page, a senior legal counsel with the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law, at least 18 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation restricting the use of masks and other forms of facial coverings. In an effort to limit the use of face coverings during demonstrations, the center reports that sixteen measures have been proposed in eight states and in Congress since October 2023.
There is more to the laws than the coronavirus epidemic. Many of these statutes originate in the 1950s and 1940s, when anti-mask legislation was enacted by numerous states in reaction to the Ku Klux Klan, whose members terrorized their victims while concealing their identities. Page said there have been efforts to resuscitate these seldom used laws to target demonstrators during the conflict in Gaza and Trump’s immigration policies.
Also, Page voiced his displeasure with the fact that the laws are being used selectively, only against movements that the federal government finds objectionable.
Some protestors donned masks during protests against the war in Gaza, which prompted Republicans in the North Carolina Senate to support a measure to remove a rule that had authorized the wearing of masks in public for health concerns during a pandemic. August saw the passage of a bill prohibiting the public wearing of masks in the Nassau County, a suburb of New York.
Last month, Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost wrote to public colleges in the state, warning that protestors might face criminal charges under Ohio’s anti-mask statute. Protesters at UNC have been informed by administrators that using masks is a violation of the state’s anti-mask statute; those detained at the University of Florida were faced charges of public assembly mask use.
A First Amendment issue that has not been resolved
According to William and Mary Law School professor Tim Zick, there are several valid reasons why protesters might choose to cover their faces. These include religious beliefs, concerns about government retaliation, fears of surveillance and doxing, and the possibility of tear gas.
“Preserving the right to peacefully protest, which includes the ability of protesters to wear masks,” Zick stated.
The federal government and Republican state lawmakers argue that the laws are not meant to limit speech, but rather to “restrict unlawful conduct that people would be more likely to engage in if they can wear masks and that would make it more difficult for law enforcement to investigate if people are wearing masks,” according to Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago school of law.
On the other hand, he noted that those who support the First Amendment are against these kinds of legislation because they make people afraid to protest for fear of punishment.
In spite of the fact that the Supreme Court “has made clear that there is a right to anonymity protected by the First Amendment,” Stone claimed that the matter remains a “unresolved First Amendment question” that the court has not yet resolved. According to Stone, very few of these statutes have faced judicial scrutiny. Additionally, lower court rulings on mask bans have been inconsistent, with some courts having invalidated more expansive anti-mask legislation on the grounds that they criminalize peaceful speech.
The right to remain anonymous has “deep roots in the nation’s founding, including when anonymous pamphlets criticizing British rule circulated in the colonies,” according to Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
Federal officials donning disguises
Americans should be able to voice their unpopular or dissident thoughts without fear of government persecution or harassment, according to Terr, who argued for the ability to speak anonymously.
Democrats in Congress and organizations that defend the First Amendment have accused ICE agents of trying to hide their identities and intimidate immigrants by wearing masks. Democratic Minnesota Governor Tim Walz said, “Don’t wear masks.” This came at a congressional hearing on June 12, when Walz blasted ICE agents for using masks during raids. Tell me your name.
Locals on Massachusetts’s Martha’s Vineyard reportedly confronted federal investigators in a video that went viral, demanding to know who they were and why they were hiding their identities. “The decision to use unmarked vehicles, plain clothed officers and masks” was denounced in a letter submitted to federal officials by Democratic Cape Cod representative Bill Keating on June 2.
Conversely, Republican federal authorities have argued that agents are protected from doxing when they wear masks.
Acting Director Todd Lyons of ICE apologized if the masks upset anybody, but he would not allow his agents and officers to risk their lives and families just because certain individuals dislike immigration enforcement.