A noble thought about not hiding behind masks but I’m not sure it works as best practice when officers are under attack for violence & doxxing from opponents who snarl in anger and show no conscience.
I think the point is that it’s more important to base decisions on real risks, not perceived risks. Masking agents seems logical when you assume the threats to homes are real, however, for all the rhetoric, the question really boils down to how many times has that actually occurred? Now, weigh those risks against the loss of legitimacy which occurs when masking agents. Time will tell, but the real answer lies upstream from this problem.
You make salient points, Roland, as does Coptimizer and Johanna. We should indeed be considering all perspectives of this argument.
While I agree that masks are not the greatest look for law enforcement, I also take into consideration that targeted threats against immigration officers in particular have dramatically intensified.
One of my biggest concerns in this realm is intel received by DHS, that criminal cartels in association with domestic extremist groups, are offering targeted bounties to assassinate officers and agents. This is actually quite chilling.
Thank you for this feedback. I had hoped that the article discussed adequately that there are legitimate uses of masking and the risks facing our federal agents include an 8000% increase in attacks. My concern is more than it is a bad look and has been proven to fail in effectiveness of protecting officers identities.
It’s definitely concerning that organizations, Particularly those officially designated as foreign terrorist organizations, may be soliciting and incentivizing domestic terrorist acts of violence against US Law Enforcement Officers who are lawfully engaged in their mandated job activities. More concerning might be how progressive and extreme left wing radicals are utilizing the same tactics as criminal gangs. That should give anyone who supports the active resistance of legitimate government policing activities pause to account. Whose side are they really on?
That being said, outside of officials who operate in sensitive operations, I don’t think masks are the right answer. Again, time will tell, but I think the problem is upstream. More specifically, ensuring accountability for those who cross the line from engaging in peaceful and lawful assemblies to participating in unlawful assemblies.
I agree. I’m not in law enforcement, but I do work in an armed security capacity. In my experience, how you present yourself—your attire, professionalism, and even your facial expression and overall demeanor—can directly affect your ability to de-escalate tensions or project authority when necessary.
From my perspective, the broader issue is that ICE and other law enforcement agencies are not consistently enforcing the very laws that are meant to keep officers—and the public—safe. Too often, we see protesters pushing, shoving, and damaging property without meaningful consequences. We’ve also watched people set cars on fire, destroy private property, and walk away without accountability.
A case in point involves an incident in which a man who was later shot had previously been in contact with ICE. Video reportedly shows him breaking a taillight on a federal vehicle, being restrained, and then somehow later being able to re-engage with law enforcement. Situations like this raise serious questions about enforcement decisions and follow-through.
I don’t understand when assaulting an officer, interfering with law enforcement, committing arson, destroying private property, or breaking into hotels started being treated as non-crimes. A lot of mistakes are being made, and focusing on masking feels like a response to a larger underlying problem rather than a real solution.
Stay with me: I think the play the Trump admin did by announcing these ops were to go after illegals convicted of violent crime or with criminal records first, was to keep protests away. Logically, who would protest removing violent criminals, right? But we see the other did find a way to counter this move and create another narrative by trying a number of different smear tactics to an uneducated public that many of us saw coming: *ICE is untrained, overzealous, making mistakes (detaining/deporting legal citizens), is violating peoples rights, is not giving due process, etc*. Social media also swarmed its own rumors (ICE are not law enforcement, they will be used to deport any minority Trump doesn't like, etc). I predicted in February of last year that immigration was going to be the resist movement for the next 4 years and once a person was seriously hurt or killed by ICE that the leftists and media would have all they need to start a George Floyd type movement against ICE. I never predicted this would kick off in MN just like GF.
I am a big uniform guy. Apart from the masks, I raise issues with ICE conducting field operations and not wearing a standard field type uniform. The excuse of "undercover" or blending in for field ops doesn't fly when they are all driving around wearing tac vests/external armor. It just looks sloppy and unprofessional. Did they go with this to get away from the optic of a uniformed "federal army" sweeping through towns? Did they think it was a "softer" more casual, inconspicuous look? Would a standardized uniform make the "Natzi/Gestapo" visual more real? I know they have a uniform because I have worked with these guys at ports in the past and I am pretty sure they have a dark blue BDU uniform with patches. Had they worn a standard BDU field uniform with a name or ID# on it, the masks would not even be an issue and the optic would blend into being like any other LE operation. As far as doxxing- like the article says, anybody who works a beat, deals with gangs or violent criminals gets death threats and family death threats. We stand in line at protests and have protestors taking pics/video of our uniform with our name and ID#. People photograph our cars coming and going from stations. They try and follow us home to intimidate us. I will buy guys concealing their face for active undercover work on active cases, but for everybody else? Welcome to the party. Deal with it.
A noble thought about not hiding behind masks but I’m not sure it works as best practice when officers are under attack for violence & doxxing from opponents who snarl in anger and show no conscience.
Great point. Climate (actual climate, not political atmosphere) also plays a practical role in face masking in January in Minnesota.
I think the point is that it’s more important to base decisions on real risks, not perceived risks. Masking agents seems logical when you assume the threats to homes are real, however, for all the rhetoric, the question really boils down to how many times has that actually occurred? Now, weigh those risks against the loss of legitimacy which occurs when masking agents. Time will tell, but the real answer lies upstream from this problem.
Yes, great perspective.
You make salient points, Roland, as does Coptimizer and Johanna. We should indeed be considering all perspectives of this argument.
While I agree that masks are not the greatest look for law enforcement, I also take into consideration that targeted threats against immigration officers in particular have dramatically intensified.
One of my biggest concerns in this realm is intel received by DHS, that criminal cartels in association with domestic extremist groups, are offering targeted bounties to assassinate officers and agents. This is actually quite chilling.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/10/14/bounties-originating-mexico-offered-shoot-ice-and-cbp-officers-chicago
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this aspect of the argument.
Thank you for this feedback. I had hoped that the article discussed adequately that there are legitimate uses of masking and the risks facing our federal agents include an 8000% increase in attacks. My concern is more than it is a bad look and has been proven to fail in effectiveness of protecting officers identities.
Yes, I got that out of it. : )
It’s definitely concerning that organizations, Particularly those officially designated as foreign terrorist organizations, may be soliciting and incentivizing domestic terrorist acts of violence against US Law Enforcement Officers who are lawfully engaged in their mandated job activities. More concerning might be how progressive and extreme left wing radicals are utilizing the same tactics as criminal gangs. That should give anyone who supports the active resistance of legitimate government policing activities pause to account. Whose side are they really on?
That being said, outside of officials who operate in sensitive operations, I don’t think masks are the right answer. Again, time will tell, but I think the problem is upstream. More specifically, ensuring accountability for those who cross the line from engaging in peaceful and lawful assemblies to participating in unlawful assemblies.
I agree. I’m not in law enforcement, but I do work in an armed security capacity. In my experience, how you present yourself—your attire, professionalism, and even your facial expression and overall demeanor—can directly affect your ability to de-escalate tensions or project authority when necessary.
From my perspective, the broader issue is that ICE and other law enforcement agencies are not consistently enforcing the very laws that are meant to keep officers—and the public—safe. Too often, we see protesters pushing, shoving, and damaging property without meaningful consequences. We’ve also watched people set cars on fire, destroy private property, and walk away without accountability.
A case in point involves an incident in which a man who was later shot had previously been in contact with ICE. Video reportedly shows him breaking a taillight on a federal vehicle, being restrained, and then somehow later being able to re-engage with law enforcement. Situations like this raise serious questions about enforcement decisions and follow-through.
I don’t understand when assaulting an officer, interfering with law enforcement, committing arson, destroying private property, or breaking into hotels started being treated as non-crimes. A lot of mistakes are being made, and focusing on masking feels like a response to a larger underlying problem rather than a real solution.
Stay with me: I think the play the Trump admin did by announcing these ops were to go after illegals convicted of violent crime or with criminal records first, was to keep protests away. Logically, who would protest removing violent criminals, right? But we see the other did find a way to counter this move and create another narrative by trying a number of different smear tactics to an uneducated public that many of us saw coming: *ICE is untrained, overzealous, making mistakes (detaining/deporting legal citizens), is violating peoples rights, is not giving due process, etc*. Social media also swarmed its own rumors (ICE are not law enforcement, they will be used to deport any minority Trump doesn't like, etc). I predicted in February of last year that immigration was going to be the resist movement for the next 4 years and once a person was seriously hurt or killed by ICE that the leftists and media would have all they need to start a George Floyd type movement against ICE. I never predicted this would kick off in MN just like GF.
I am a big uniform guy. Apart from the masks, I raise issues with ICE conducting field operations and not wearing a standard field type uniform. The excuse of "undercover" or blending in for field ops doesn't fly when they are all driving around wearing tac vests/external armor. It just looks sloppy and unprofessional. Did they go with this to get away from the optic of a uniformed "federal army" sweeping through towns? Did they think it was a "softer" more casual, inconspicuous look? Would a standardized uniform make the "Natzi/Gestapo" visual more real? I know they have a uniform because I have worked with these guys at ports in the past and I am pretty sure they have a dark blue BDU uniform with patches. Had they worn a standard BDU field uniform with a name or ID# on it, the masks would not even be an issue and the optic would blend into being like any other LE operation. As far as doxxing- like the article says, anybody who works a beat, deals with gangs or violent criminals gets death threats and family death threats. We stand in line at protests and have protestors taking pics/video of our uniform with our name and ID#. People photograph our cars coming and going from stations. They try and follow us home to intimidate us. I will buy guys concealing their face for active undercover work on active cases, but for everybody else? Welcome to the party. Deal with it.