On Thursday, September 25, 2025, three plainclothes ICE officers tackled Jorge Gonzalez, an undocumented immigrant, to the ground in downtown Iowa City.[1] Video footage of the arrest showed onlookers asking the agents whether they were police officers or employed ICE agents, to which the men responded that they were “federal agents.”[2] This forceful display from police and lack of transparency fosters a dangerous environment for everyone in Iowa.

Iowa has adopted “Stand Your Ground” laws, meaning that an individual has no duty to retreat from a danger so long as they are legally permitted in that space.[3] Iowa law also permits the concealed carrying of firearms, so long as an individual is legally allowed to own the weapon.[4] Officers who do not identify themselves through verbal announcement or clothing instill fear in entire communities, especially if they detain the wrong person. 

Transparency is essential in holding law enforcement accountable; this is why many police departments mandate the usage of body cameras and require officers to verbally identify themselves.[5] These policies allow some avenue of redress to civilians if law enforcement officers were to abuse their power; at minimum, they can identify offending officers by name. In contrast, ICE agents are not subject to these policies and are permitted to wear masks. Director of ICE, Todd Lyons, despite failing to provide any information to support [his] assertion of an increase in agent doxxing,”[6] stated the policy of wearing masks was, in fact, a response to the doxxing of and threats to agents.[7] This practice shields ICE agents from accountability and public scrutiny. 

Section 1357 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code lists the powers of immigration officers and employees; officers have the power to arrest any undocumented immigrant “if he has reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest” (emphasis added).[8] It is unclear what these reasons might include; however, a recent Supreme Court ruling has effectively permitted racial profiling as a sufficient justification for detaining undocumented immigrants.[9]Yet many undocumented individuals, like Jorge Gonzalez, are deeply integrated in their communities and cannot abandon their families. Thus, ICE’s interpretation of the statute, that undocumented immigrants are likely to flee before their arrest, lacks a reasonable basis. Additionally, the statute also grants ICE the power to search vehicles for undocumented immigrants “within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States.”[10]  This language is so vague and expansive that it effectively sanctions ICE to patrol anywhere in the United States in search of undocumented immigrants. The statute is also silent about whether ICE agents are required to identify themselves in public.

As a countermeasure to ICE’s activities, California passed Senate Bill 627, which prohibits federal officers from wearing masks during their operations.[11] In response to this law, Tricia McLaughlin, deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said, “We don’t need to abide by this garbage.”[12] The stark opposition of federal law enforcement to state demands raises issues concerning federalism, namely, that the federal government seems all too willing to steamroll over state demands in the name of “national security.” Indeed, if federal law enforcement policies are immune from state influence, federal officers should be subject to robust transparency measures. Otherwise, these officers will neither be accountable to the states, nor to the American people.

However, California is unlikely to succeed in the long run. States do not have authority over the policies of federal agents and cannot hold them accountable under the law. This principle is well-established in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which states that the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby . . .”[13] Furthermore, the Supreme Court in In re Neagle addressed this issue in holding that state authorities could not prosecute a U.S. Marshal when he shot an elected official while acting in his official federal capacity.[14] Almost a century later, the Court reaffirmed this position in Clifton v. Cox, when it held that a federal agent who shot an unarmed suspect in the back could not be prosecuted by a state for actions taken in his federal duties.[15] These cases make clear that California’s law masks will not likely be enforced until Congress passes federal legislation.

Recent legislative developments have also expanded federal authority. The Immigration and Nationality Act requires officers to have reasonable suspicion before making a warrantless arrest.[16] In Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, the Court granted the government’s request to continue detentions despite a lower court order barring stops based on race, language, or location.[17] This ruling has inflated ICE’s enforcement power and has reduced the scope of judicial oversight.

Still, states are not powerless. While they cannot ban masks, they can withhold their cooperations with ICE. Under the anti-commandeering doctrine, reaffirmed in Printz v. United States, the federal government cannot force state or local officials to enforce federal law[18]. Yet in March, the Iowa Department of Public Safety signed a 287(g) agreement – a formal agreement where local law enforcement agents receive training and are granted powers of federal agents. If Iowa truly cared about accountability and public safety, it would terminate this agreement instead of expanding the powers of an already under-constrained federal agency.

The prevalence of undercover ICE raids perpetuates instability, not security. In a state with permissive gun laws and stand-your-ground protections, unidentified armed agents tackling people in public places everyone at risk. Transparency and accountability are essential to maintaining trust in law enforcement, and federal immigration officers should be held to that standard. Without it, public safety and confidence will only continue to erode.