Washington state Governor Bob Ferguson is pressing the Legislature to fast-track a controversial bill that would ban most law enforcement officers — including federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents — from wearing face coverings during public interactions. The proposal, championed in Ferguson’s January 14, 2026 State of the State address, is intended to increase transparency and accountability as criticism mounts over aggressive immigration enforcement tactics employed under the Trump administration. 

Under the proposed Senate Bill 5855 and its companion House version, officers would be prohibited from wearing opaque masks or other coverings that conceal their identity while interacting with the public. Exceptions would be made for undercover operations, tactical gear worn by special weapons teams, and necessary protective or medical equipment. The bill also would create a cause of action, allowing civilians detained by improperly masked officers to seek civil remedies such as damages and attorney fees.

Supporters argue that the measure would build public trust by ensuring that officers are visibly identifiable when carrying out their duties. Sen. Javier Valdez and Rep. Julio Cortes, the bill’s legislative sponsors, told committee members that the legislation is a direct response to widespread use of masks by federal agents during immigration enforcement that has sparked fear in communities. Demonstrations and concerns about identity concealment have been on the rise, with local lawmakers asserting that transparency is critical to accountability. 

Governor Ferguson, in his address, specifically cited instances of federal agents conducting operations in unmarked vehicles and without visible identification. “As an American, I never thought I would see federal agents in masks jumping out of unmarked cars and grabbing people off our streets,” he said, urging lawmakers to send the bill to his desk for signature. 

However, the proposed legislation faces significant legal hurdles. Constitutional experts and federal prosecutors have warned that efforts to regulate federal officers’ conduct may violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes that federal law and federal functions prevail over conflicting state statutes. Similar laws in California have already sparked federal litigation, with the Department of Justice challenging a state ban on masked federal agents on constitutional grounds. 

Opponents also argue that the bill could put officers and their families at increased risk by exposing identities to potential doxxing or retaliation. Representatives of law enforcement associations have expressed concerns that Washington’s measure could hinder public safety and undermine operational effectiveness in certain circumstances. 

As the Legislature considers the proposal, Washington joins a broader national debate over immigration enforcement tactics and the balance between transparency, accountability, and federal authority. The outcome of this bill, and any legal challenges it may face, will likely have implications beyond state borders as similar measures have been pursued in other states.