Masked ICE agents might be okay, says Dem leadership

[mr715]

in certain situations.

Do with this information what you will.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/democrats-ice-masks-dhs-shutdown_n_69839db8e4b053ac3e17298d

[kacekwl]

1. Anytime I see Dems soften their demands I

am not surprised.

[Phoenix61]

6. Sadly, neither am I ...incredibly disappointed but not

the least bit surprised. I’m so over it.

[Scrivener7]

51. And this is before any negotiations. They're just smacking their own selves in the ass.

[Cha]

61. The OP Left Out This Part.. WHY?

Last edited Thu Feb 5, 2026, 01:40 AM - Edit history (1)

"Just common sense dictates that there are sometimes safety reasons why you may need a mask,” Murphy told HuffPost. “But no, I think our position is very clear, that if you’re using a mask to obscure your identity in everyday law enforcement, that should be prohibited by law.”

[travelingthrulife]

69. Yeah, I was looking for the "softening" but I couldn't find much. Sounds like they all want masks off.

[sboatcar]

79. They'll claim its a 'special circumstance' every time.

NT

[mr715]

80. Yeah, again, we know the plot here.

HuffPost isn't a conservative publication. Their headline is articulating exactly what happened - leadership is waffling on bedrock principles.

And they are using Sen. Murphy as a human shield.

[Crunchy Frog]

90. I don't think equivocating sends the right message. Do the republicans ever equivocate like that?

[Biophilic]

2. Scream bloody murder, "No, you're wrong!"

[pwb]

3. There is no need for this military style look.

And there is no need to throw every person to the ground. Put suits back on and knock on doors. Over reacting like every arrest is a swat team operation is bullshit.

[AZJonnie]

62. Sure, but these guys are signing up so they can finally use all the "Tactical" costumes

that they blew the money the wife worked 2 jobs to save up for their kid's trade school on!

You take THAT away, hardly anybody will sign up to murder US citizens in the streets and drag away 70 year Latina women selling churros in the Home Depot parking lot.

The wives need paying back so these shmoes can quit sleeping on the couch, so the cosplay costumes must stay!

[mr715]

82. You think they need jocks

to protect their tiny, tiny balls?

[Bettie]

4. About right...start negotiations at the bare minimum

and retreat from that.

So, by the end, they'll give ICE a bunch of new powers, in the name of "good faith negotiation".

Yes, I am frustrated by this. It seems as if the people in charge of our party are unwilling to play softball, much less hardball.

[mr715]

16. Our leaders like their little club.

To me, there is never a case so extraordinary that it requires surrendering bedrock principles of rule of law.

When I was younger, I waffled on the death penalty. Now I'm opposed for the simple reason that I cannot accept 1 innocent dying because of a failure of our justice system. There is no calculation, or consideration. I don't think the state should be empowered to kill.

I wonder what extraordinary cases Sen. Schumer is thinking of. Perhaps if someone has covid? I just don't understand. And so disappointed it hurts.

[MustLoveBeagles]

5. No it's not! You're wrong!

Stop helping the other side! 🤬

[Cha]

39. I don't think they are. Did you read this part, Beagles..

Last edited Wed Feb 4, 2026, 09:16 PM - Edit history (1)

“Just common sense dictates that there are sometimes safety reasons why you may need a mask,” Murphy told HuffPost. “But no, I think our position is very clear, that if you’re using a mask to obscure your identity in everyday law enforcement, that should be prohibited by law.”

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who also participated in the press conference, said Democrats were speaking to law enforcement experts about what the mask exceptions should be.

“You heard the leaders talk about narrow exceptions, et cetera, which will have to do with trying to get that information from our law enforcement people about, you know, if you’re dealing with a cartel,” she said. “This is to take a look at what those narrow exceptions should be, and that’s reasonable.”

[MustLoveBeagles]

44. I must've missed it

I reacted. I have to admit that I don't hate our leadership but sometimes I'm disappointed by them.

[Scrivener7]

81. Yes. The leaders said it, and the two of them had to politely walk it back. Why did they say it in the first place?

[mr715]

84. Which makes one wonder...

Who is doing the leading, and who the following.

[Cirsium]

85. Leadership's position

“I think there’s agreement that no masks should be deployed in an arbitrary and capricious fashion, as has been the case, horrifying the American people,” Jeffries said.

Pretty clear.

What about warrantless arrests, random stops, racial profiling, beatings, extrajudicial detention, executions, denial of due process "deployed in an arbitrary and capricious fashion, as has been the case, horrifying the American people?"

[Fiendish Thingy]

7. Shameful and unacceptable

May the November Blue Tsunami elect a majority of Democrats with the courage to address the ICE crisis unflinchingly, regardless of what the “leadership” doesn’t have the stomach for.

[underpants]

8. The masks were a big ask. They are tempering it down.

As I saw here, dropping masks could cause an 80% dropoff of agents. They can’t do that, they have a buttload of money to spend.

[mr715]

10. If agents of the executive authority are unwilling to show their face

They must not be given deadly weapons.

The fact that 80% would resign tells us something. To my nose, it smells of guilt.

[Cha]

38. Did you read this part?.. Details...

“Just common sense dictates that there are sometimes safety reasons why you may need a mask,” Murphy told HuffPost. “But no, I think our position is very clear, that if you’re using a mask to obscure your identity in everyday law enforcement, that should be prohibited by law.”

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who also participated in the press conference, said Democrats were speaking to law enforcement experts about what the mask exceptions should be.

“You heard the leaders talk about narrow exceptions, et cetera, which will have to do with trying to get that information from our law enforcement people about, you know, if you’re dealing with a cartel,” she said. “This is to take a look at what those narrow exceptions should be, and that’s reasonable.”

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20996207

[sl8]

43. I saw that "80%" post, but gave it zero credibility.

It was based on a Threads post that started off with "According to reports ...". The same basic post is all over Facebook and Twitter (some posts say 75%), but without a source for these supposed reports, it's a meaningless statement. It's like starting a claim with "Some people say ..." or "Rumor has it ...".

I searched and can find no credible sources to back up the claim. Do you know of any?

[kacekwl]

59. Isn't that the goal here ?

[Iggo]

91. No shit.

So we get rid of the 80% that are shit agents.

So what? That’s a good thing.

We can also get rid of that 80% by abolishing 100% of ICE.

[flvegan]

9. "...no masks, except in extraordinary and unusual circumstances."

LOL, okay Chuck. So when ICE says that kicking in doors, shooting citizens in the face/back/all over and general terrorism is "extraordinary and unusual" (because frankly it should be unfuckingusual, but here we are anyway) what then?

Not a damn thing, as usual. But, it absolves you when you vote for whatever shit they put in front of you and we can "but they promised" and "didn't see them lying about that" all the way to the gas chamber*.

At least the powder is dry.

*As usual, I'll be happy to eat my words slathered in dijon if/when they prove me wrong. I'll be standing front and center with The Spine of the Year Award.

[mr715]

11. It wasn't an unreasonable ask.

No secret police.

Putting in that little morsel of "well, maybe in some extraordinary cases..." is feckless. It weakens us as a party.

[MustLoveBeagles]

21. Agreed 👍

[NewHendoLib]

12. Just gross capitulation

[mr715]

13. Disgusting and unacceptable.

[montanacowboy]

14. Dem Leadership is

an oxymoron

[Prairie Gates]

15. I want everyone to understand that Dems have 100% leverage right now on DHS

The rest of the government is funded, ICE and DHS is widely reviled by the electorate.

So, the decisions they make will tell us whether they're on our side or the side of the fascist thugs.

"Masks acceptable in some cases" is not a good start.

[mr715]

17. It isn't "not a good start". It is a betrayal.

Renee Good and Alex Pretti were killed by agents hiding behind face masks. This should not be. We cannot, cannot, normalize this. There are no extraordinary cases(*).

*From a negotiating legislative position


I am so sad that we so quickly sell our soul by inches.

[bluestarone]

18. WTF?????

I don't need to say more here!!

[hamsterjill]

19. If ICE is indeed to be defined as "law enforcement", then they need to act like all other law enforcement.

I know of no other branch of law enforcement that wears masks. All others that I know of, at least, wear a badge prominently displayed with their name and a number on that badge. FBI agents that I've known do not have a badge readily visible, but they have one in their pocket that they produce if asked.

If the Democratic leadership gives in to allowing ICE agents to remain masked, I will view it as an unacceptable concession.

[mr715]

20. Agree 100%.

It is a line in the sand that isn't even asking much. Just law and order.

[Bettie]

25. ICE wears whatever they buy themselves

at the military surplus store....no name tags, often not even designation of what agency they are from, just a Velcro patch that says "Police" which they aren't.

Oh, and they love those skull masks...so professional!

[hamsterjill]

41. You are exactly right!

And that should be the argument right there that Democrats use.

Because any Tom, Dick, Harry or kidnapper, estranged husband, upset boyfriend, etc. can go to the army surplus store and buy the exact same gear and PRETEND to be law enforcement.

They need to be easily and readily identifiable. And if they are too damned ashamed to show their faces when they are doing their jobs, then they shouldn't be allowed to hide.

[Ping Tung]

22. Principles, Morals, even common human decency is negotiable under Trump and

those that are ready to make a " Deal' with Don.

[mr715]

23. Are they though?

Last edited Wed Feb 4, 2026, 09:23 PM - Edit history (1)

If one cuts their decency in half, are they half as decent? Or are they just indecent, full stop.

If one is willing to capitulate on irreducible matters of truth and justice, they never were righteous.

[FascismIsDeath]

24. Quick, everyone react to the headline and don't bother reading the details!

“Just common sense dictates that there are sometimes safety reasons why you may need a mask,” Murphy told HuffPost. “But no, I think our position is very clear, that if you’re using a mask to obscure your identity in everyday law enforcement, that should be prohibited by law.”

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who also participated in the press conference, said Democrats were speaking to law enforcement experts about what the mask exceptions should be.

“You heard the leaders talk about narrow exceptions, et cetera, which will have to do with trying to get that information from our law enforcement people about, you know, if you’re dealing with a cartel,” she said. “This is to take a look at what those narrow exceptions should be, and that’s reasonable.”

[mr715]

26. You don't think it is problematic

that we are negotiating against ourselves?

Why are we broadcasting "narrow exceptions may apply".

It is bad leadership.

[FascismIsDeath]

27. I think we should be honest, open and spell out exactly what we want from the get go, with as many details as possible.

I can tell that some folks have watched too much television when they opine about what THEY think are the finer points of political negotiations.

Just be real with the public because thats who they are communicating with.

I have no time for fantastical bullshit involving some imaginary 3 dimensional chess nonsense.

[mr715]

30. I can only speak for myself.

I don't think 'no masks for ICE' is a difficult position to articulate, so I don't know how much 3D chess is involved.

I think our leadership is being completely honest and they are of the opinion that exceptions may apply. I disagree.

[FascismIsDeath]

36. There are times when we all need to cover our face for some reason.

These are rare things. Sometimes, in law enforcement, its because they may be going into a situation where they need to protect themselves against breathing in contaminates or, like the one Congresswoman said, they may be dealing with an actual situation where they are interacting with assets related to organized crime. And you know, we could always have another pandemic.

Might as well get ahead of the ridiculous reasons Republicans will use to shoot down any restrictions on masks whatsoever.

"Well, Democrats are trying to get them all killed when the next pandemic hits"

"Democrats want make sure the cartels know who's family to target whenever we have agents communicating with informants"

Just take those talking points away from them now instead of having to explain themselves later. Put an iron clad proposal on the table that refutes as many of their disingenuous arguments as possible.

The goal is for it to be held to the same standards as regular police officers as far as identifying oneself. Lets make sure that happens.

[Scrivener7]

66. They're murdering people in the streets. And now, thanks to our own leaders shooting us

in the foot, the discussion is not about that, but rather the finer points of mask wearing.

No, it's not three dimensional chess. It's the lowest level of common sense not to concede anything before the negotiations even begin.

[FascismIsDeath]

67. You're one of those "watched too many movies" people I was talking about

[Scrivener7]

71. No. I'm one of those people who has actually conducted negotiations and who understands the

absolutely most basic concepts of them.

[mr715]

73. Labor leader?

I was a proud union leader for the UFT for 9 years. In that capacity I learned you don't negotiate on fundamental rights because once you lose your rights, you will never get them back.

My boss, a principal with the best heart and best brain, always supported her UFT teachers. When she retired, education lost one of its greatest leaders.

When I had vote on contract negotiations and stuff, my delegate was more progressive than I. I made a point of never voting against her (solidarity for my team) even if I disagreed. I simply voted present.

I believe I was an effective leader. I saved a lot of people's jobs.

[Scrivener7]

76. No. I've had two careers. In the first I was with a company that was doing a lot of acquisitions

and cooperative deals. That industry went from 40 companies to 2 in the time I worked in it. It was ugly and that's part of the reason I switched careers, but my company was one of the two that survived the bloodbath.

[FascismIsDeath]

95. Well despite all that, you obviously didn't learn about pre-emptive argumentation or proactive objection handling.

[mr715]

77. My honored friend, Scrivener, is a clear and original thinker.

They have articulated a position that shouldn't be dismissed as "watched too many movies".

Perhaps, as they suggest, they were actually in a position of authority to do what our leadership has been unable to do.

[FascismIsDeath]

96. I am going to continue to dismiss it because of the concepts I mentioned to that person, that they are ignoring.

There are negotiating tactics called pre-emptive argumentation or proactive objection handling. Its how you inoculate your argument against objections before the objections can even be made.

[Jedi Guy]

56. Because sometimes exceptions apply.

That's not surrender or capitulation, it's simple recognition of reality.

Are there circumstances where an ICE agent might reasonably need to wear a mask? Yes, if they're, for example, enforcing an immigration order on a known violent gang member whose associates may retaliate against the officers or their family members if they can identify the ICE agents. Some state and local officers wear masks for precisely this reason.

That's the most likely reason they might need to wear masks and it's not unreasonable. The circumstances in which they're permitted to wear masks need to be clearly delineated. Any ICE agent in breach of the regulations gets disciplined, end of story. Voila, the problem is solved.

Making sensible rules isn't hard but making rules that flatly ignore reality is even easier, though sadly less than effective.

[Scrivener7]

65. And why are we putting DeLauro and Murphy in a position that they have to

mitigate the leaders' gaffe.

[mr715]

75. Distributive blame.

Squash Sen. Murphy's ambitions by getting the stink of complicity in his vicinity.

[EdmondDantes_]

37. It would depend on the exceptions

I agree the headline is misleading, but I worry about the weasel words in terms of being actually limiting.

[FascismIsDeath]

49. If the end result is, "follow the same protocols as regular ass police officers tend to do", its a huge difference.

Because then these guys wondering around cities, just fucking with people, will be on camera, they'll be identified... we will know who the Proud Boys are that were allowed in, we will know if Jan 6ers were allowed in, we will see if the white nationalist militia folks were allowed in... either that, or they'll all quit because they can't go around in public just harassing everyone with no fear of being found out.

[EdmondDantes_]

68. That's certainly one possibility.

But the Trump administration isn't exactly known for being truthful or adhering to agreements. The devil is in the details and enforcement.

[FascismIsDeath]

70. Theres nothing congress can do about that other than impeach people.

They don't really have their own police to go around enforcing laws they pass.

[mr715]

74. They can cut funding.

They can humiliate.

They can pass laws and regulations.

They can limit the jurisdiction of certain courts.

They can set the legislative agenda and let nothing move until preeminent issues are addressed first.

In theory anyway. An empowered Congress can do that, not the neutered Congress of Speaker Johnson.

[FascismIsDeath]

94. If you actually read what I was responding to:

The poster said:

"But the Trump administration isn't exactly known for being truthful or adhering to agreements. The devil is in the details and enforcement."

In other words, we are talking about a scenario where laws and regulations were passed and the administration just ignores it and does whatever they want anyway.

The same could be said for when they illegally reroute money to get around funding issues.

The same could be said for when they ignore courts.

The same could be said for when we lock up the works and don't let anything move, they still just go whatever they want.

When you have an administration like that, the answer is removing those people from office.

And these assholes aren't capable of humility so they can rarely be humiliated.

[Scrivener7]

52. Negotiations haven't even started and they're backing down. If, after they sit at the table

and a republican says, "Masks are needed," THEN you say, "OK. When the protestors are throwing tear gas at the agents." You don't identify the areas where you'll give in BEFORE the negotiation starts.

And what have republicans conceded BEFORE the negotiation starts? That the first, second, fourth and I don't know how many more Amendments will not be trashed by a rogue militia on a daily basis? That the agents won't murder Americans in the street and beat up people with autism and kidnap children? I haven't heard anything like that, have you?

WHY are WE conceding ANYTHING now?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

28. Or we could just abolish ICE and then we don't have to worry about masks

[OAITW r.2.0]

29. We will be a better Country when we have Democrats controlling the WH and Congress.

1st order of business,
Dismantle ICE/DHS.

Then.
* Invest in DOJ/IRS
* Laws to mitigate future Presidential power.

[mr715]

33. Also

Enshrine abortion rights.

Overturn citizens united.

Then, if we're feeling ambitious, Supreme Court changes.

[Raven123]

31. The devil is in the details, without which this should be a NO.

Cannot trust this administration. They manufacture crises like I change my socks.

[bucolic_frolic]

32. Only fund unmasked agents

If you've got something to hide you shouldn't be an agent.

[mr715]

34. No guns/weapons if you need a mask.

[Cha]

35. I Hope Everyone is Contacting Them

and not just complaining here.

“Just common sense dictates that there are sometimes safety reasons why you may need a mask,” Murphy told HuffPost. “But no, I think our position is very clear, that if you’re using a mask to obscure your identity in everyday law enforcement, that should be prohibited by law.”

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who also participated in the press conference, said Democrats were speaking to law enforcement experts about what the mask exceptions should be.

“You heard the leaders talk about narrow exceptions, et cetera, which will have to do with trying to get that information from our law enforcement people about, you know, if you’re dealing with a cartel,” she said. “This is to take a look at what those narrow exceptions should be, and that’s reasonable.”

TY.. This What I Make Of It.

[Deuxcents]

50. We are not cartels, drug lords or the sort. We're everyday citizens, children being terrorized.

If these agents are gonna be undercover or engaging in drug trafficking and need identity hidden, then a mask is part of the uniform. I get the importance of special protection but these demands are results of what’s going on in our neighborhoods and we have no evidence that this mission has produced dangerous cartels

[surfered]

40. Nooooo! There is no reason for masked law enforcement other than to avoid accountability!

[Blue Owl]

42. Not this shit again

[Oneironaut]

45. He's technically right, but, I'm not sure the 0.01% of situations that require a mask are worth mentioning.

“Sometimes they can wear a mask” might be misconstrued, though technically he’s still correct. We need those situations defined, however. There is no current definition of when a mask is acceptable (from the untrained eye), and, that means it’s always acceptable. It shouldn’t be.

[Mysterian]

46. Milquetoasts will always waffle over tiny details as fascists steamroll ahead

Just call them the the Weimar Democrats.

[Scrivener7]

53. I don't see republicans making any concessions before negotiations begin about ICE not murdering Americans.

Or kidnapping children or illegally invading people's houses with no warrant. THAT would be common sense.

Why are we making ANY concessions in the media before we are asked to?

It's just ridiculous.

[Initech]

47. No! They are *NOT* OK under any circumstances!

Has the whole world gone fucking crazy? WTF!

[IcyPeas]

48. ICE's goal is to terrorize. Wearing masks helps accomplish this.

No masks.

[EnergizedLib]

54. What is WRONG with our party leadership?

[mr715]

55. Consultants and entitlement

There is no more playbook. They need to adapt or fail. Also, they lead from behind and hide behind the aegis of consensus. Ultimately it wins us nothing because the American public has no appetite for politicians that "seem" political.

[hatrack]

57. Fuck that noise . . .

Not now. Not ever.

FUCK this.

[gulliver]

58. I don't think people appreciate how bad modern tech is

A street gang could set up a coordinated set of Ring cameras or similar around a neighborhood or town. Central servers could be used to scan the video from the cameras, collecting license plates of residents and doing real-time tracking of residents and police. Hopefully, I don't have to flesh this story out.

Things aren't like what they were. No one knows who is in these organized groups. Even they don't know who's in them. They are routinely infiltrated as we've seen in the news.

I don't like masks, but folks, Mayberry was a long time ago.

[aocommunalpunch]

63. A street gang is your worry?

Not the gestapo? Bruh.

[Scrivener7]

64. So you think they SHOULD be masked? That's what you're saying? And you're saying that, with a budget

larger than most countries' military budgets, they can't take down those bad, bad Minneapolis street gangs?

If they can't do that without masks that protect them when they murder innocent American observers, then they shouldn't exist.

[pinkstarburst]

93. Guess what? This could happen to any of us.

The reason ICE is so freaked out about it is because they know they are behaving terribly. The police go to work every day with no masks on. They have their names and ID numbers on their uniforms. They wear body cameras. This does not solve all problems. But it solves 98% of them. And it would solve 98% of the current problems we are having with ICE if they were unmasked and had body cameras, ID and names on uniforms. It would clean up their behavior and we would see more people THINK before a gang of 7 thugs surrounded and shot an ICU nurse 10 times. That image was so shocking because while you do have police shootings, and you do have horrific murders that happen like the George Floyd killing, the police are unmasked and recorded, and so they are thinking with their "I don't want what I'm doing to come back and haunt me" brain not my "cool, this is a video game, how many people can I kill?" brain. That's our problem.

[Hassler]

60. Nope. And disarm them.

[Autumn]

72. Ho sweet of them.

[yankee87]

78. What the actual fuck?

We are going to lose the midterms because of shit like this. No compromise with these animals.

[Iggo]

83. No.

[C_U_L8R]

86. When is it ever okay?

Anonymous goon squads are just permission to commit atrocities. How about printing giant QR codes on the front back and sides of every uniform that uniquely identifies each ‘agent’.

[Jilly_in_VA]

87. NEVER!

And anyone, ANY Democrat backing this needs to have their leadership and their vote seriously questioned.

[CanonRay]

88. Every time I hear about Dems caving

It's Schumer and Jeffries. Jeffries and Schumer. Hmmm, what to make of that? If I say what I really think of those two, I'll get another post blocked.

[mr715]

89. I ain't gonna click alert.

They are good Democrats, best suited to the back benches.

They are scared of taking risks and exist in a political bubble that blinds them to the reality we are living.

They are rich, famous, insulated, and I fear numb to the very real danger the Republic is in.

Schumer was an extraordinarily successful DSCC chair, and recruited some of the very best Senators we have/had. Most of them aren't in the Senate anymore, but their loyalty to him propelled him to leadership after Sen. Reid, a much more pugilistic and effective Senate leader.

Rep. Jeffries is a projection of light and sound by Speaker Emerita Pelosi. I have no doubt she was the main force in the caucus before she decided to retire. With her leaving, Jeffries is adrift. A hologram without a projector.

[pinkstarburst]

92. We need new leadership

This is not okay.

Masks are emboldening ICE to do whatever the F they want, like having a gang of 7 armed men executing innocent civilians in the street. Taking the masks off will not result in mass doxxing, just like the police walking around in your community does not result in mass doxxing. There was not mass doxxing of ICE before they starting going around like mass thugs acting thuggish. The masks are enabling their thuggish behavior. Remove the masks and put names and ID numbers and body cameras on every ICE officer, and watch behavior improve for 98% of them.

Keep the masks on, and they'll keep shooting any mouthy woman or ICU nurse they like, because they believe they won't be caught.

And if Schumer and Jeffries are too spineless to do this, the absolute bare minimum, we need to get rid of them, like YESTERDAY. Get Schumer out as minority leader and replace him with Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Someone with actual balls. Same with Jeffries. Get AOC in there. These two are completely useless and they're bringing the party down.

[Jack Valentino]

97. 'Republican leaders' should start wearing masks THEMSELVES----

as should elected Democrats who are willing to buckle down to fascism
while they still have a VOTE on it!!!!

BUCK UP, elected Democratic men and women!!!!!


The Democratic party base is SICK AND TIRED of votes that show 'weakness'---
ESPECIALLY those 'compromises' which give the Republican FASCISTS what they want!!!!


SHUT DOWN that part of the goddamned current 'government',
if that's what it takes! DO IT and I will APPLAUD YOU!!!!