If adopted, SB 5855 would prohibit all state, federal and tribal law enforcement officers from wearing masks while interacting with the public
Tim Clouser
The Center Square Washington
See Grok’s analysis of this story
The Washington State Senate advanced a proposal Wednesday that would prohibit all law enforcement from wearing masks with many immigration agents wearing face coverings they say they need to protect them from harassment and doxing.
Gov. Bob Ferguson announced his support for the idea earlier this month as state Democrats proposed several bills that could impede federal immigration enforcement. Wednesday’s floor vote sends Senate Bill 5855 to the state House. Both chambers must consider each other’s amendments before adoption.
The House held a public hearing on Jan. 12 for a companion bill and scheduled an executive session to consider passing it out of committee, but ultimately decided to hold off. Lawmakers typically introduce a proposal in each chamber to improve its chances of passing and focus on whichever measure advances first.
The Senate passed SB 5855 by a 30-19 vote, with every Republican opposing the police mask ban.
“They’re not wearing masks because they’re secret police,” Sen. Phil Portunato, R-Auburn, testified on Wednesday while on the Senate floor. “They’re wearing masks to protect themselves and their family.”
If adopted, SB 5855 would prohibit all state, federal and tribal law enforcement officers from wearing masks while interacting with the public. That would technically apply to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers as well, but there’s debate over whether the Trump administration would comply.
Federal data shows assaults on ICE officers have increased 1,300%, with a 3,200% increase in “vehicular attacks”. Another news release cites an 8,000% increase in death threats against ICE agents as of late.
President Donald Trump has threatened to cut off funding to jurisdictions with sanctuary state policies on Feb. 1, though the courts have blocked other attempts. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has also included Washington state on a list of sanctuary jurisdictions that could lose federal funding.
“When armed unidentified agents see people in public spaces, they’re not enforcing the law; they’re spreading fear. Communities are being traumatized, families are being terrorized, and our trust in our public institutions become eroded,” Sen. Javier Valdez, D-Seattle, said Wednesday on the Senate floor.
Other state proposals under consideration would attempt to notify immigrant workers before potential immigration raids, prohibit federal agents from entering schools, daycares, election offices and health care facilities without a warrant, allow people injured during federal immigration enforcement to sue the officer, and limit the use of widely available surveillance cameras and related data, among others.
Millions of immigrants illegally crossed the border under the Biden administration, with states such as Washington handing out health care benefits at the taxpayers’ expense. Washington state Republicans have repeatedly emphasized federal supremacy, arguing that these ICE proposals are unconstitutional.
“This is really a distraction. It’s very clear that this is not enforceable,” Senate Minority Leader John Braun told reporters on Tuesday. “Let’s focus on the real issues put in place by the Biden administration.”
Wednesday’s floor vote follows a press conference that Ferguson held with state Attorney General Nick Brown on Monday. The officials again voiced support for SB 5855, encouraging people to report federal activity they find concerning, despite unsubstantiated claims that have led schools to shelter in place.
Ferguson and Brown vowed to hold ICE accountable amid reports of a leaked memo allegedly directing agents to rely on administrative warrants, rather than court orders, to conduct raids. The conference followed incidents in Minnesota, where federal agents had fatally shot people, leading to major unrest.
While federal officials argue that the people intended to harm law enforcement, some lawmakers have warned against jumping to conclusions before a formal investigation. Others have called the shootings “murder.” Ferguson and the legislative majority have not shied away from sharing their opinions either.
“Video clearly showed that he was helping a young woman who was pushed down by masked agents that were not identified,” Sen. Adrian Cortes, D-Battle Ground, testified Wednesday on the Senate floor. “He was beaten, and then an ICE agent stood over his back, clear as day and shot him in the back.”
Several Republicans also acknowledged issues with how federal immigration enforcement is unfolding, but argued the state can only do so much, reaffirming the Trump administration’s role in this matter.
“If you are going to believe in the rule of law, you don’t get to choose which law you agree with,” Braun testified Wednesday. “Let’s get at the root cause — the root cause is we have a fundamental disagreement in our country, certainly on this floor, about whether or not to enforce federal law.”
This report was first published by The Center Square Washington.
This independent analysis was created with Grok, an AI model from xAI. It is not written or edited by ClarkCountyToday.com and is provided to help readers evaluate the article’s sourcing and context.
Quick summary
The Washington State Senate passed Senate Bill 5855 in a 30–19 vote on Jan. 29, 2026. As described in the article, the bill would prohibit state, federal, and tribal law‑enforcement officers from wearing masks that conceal identity during public interactions, with exceptions for undercover and SWAT operations. It now heads to the House amid debate over whether the state can enforce the policy on federal agents and how the change could affect officer safety.
What Grok notices
- Reports the 30–19 vote and summarizes sponsor Sen. Javier Valdez’s stated rationale, framing the mask restriction as a way to reduce fear and intimidation during law‑enforcement encounters.
- Includes opposition arguments from Republicans, including Sen. Phil Portunato, emphasizing concerns about doxxing and increased risks of assault if officers’ identities are easier to determine.
- References federal-level data and claims about increased assaults and threats against ICE officers, using that context to connect the debate to current tensions around immigration enforcement.
- Quotes Gov. Ferguson’s comments at a press conference and cites specific incidents referenced during debate to show the political backdrop influencing the bill’s reception.
- Signals next steps in the process, including potential House amendments and scrutiny of how the bill would apply to federal agents given Supremacy Clause concerns.
Questions worth asking
- How might limiting facial coverings affect officers’ ability to protect themselves from doxxing, threats, or retaliation—especially after high‑visibility operations?
- If the bill is meant to apply to federal agents, what enforcement mechanisms are proposed, and how would they intersect with Supremacy Clause constraints?
- What impact could a mask restriction have on community trust—both among residents who want clear identification and among those who fear intensified enforcement?
- How should policymakers weigh officer‑safety concerns against public demands for visible identification during routine interactions?
- What alternative approaches—clearer badge/ID display rules, unique ID numbers, body‑camera requirements, or narrower limits—could address concerns about masked enforcement without a broad ban?
Research this topic more
- Washington State Legislature – SB 5855 bill text, bill history, and status
- U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement – information related to officer safety and policies
- Washington State Senate Law & Justice Committee – hearing records and testimony resources
- U.S. Department of Homeland Security – statements and resources on federal officer protections
- NCSL – overview resources on state police identification laws
Also read:
- POLL: Should councilors serving on boards be required to vote the way the full council decides?
A new poll asks whether Clark County councilors serving on boards should be required to vote in line with the full council’s position or retain independent judgment. - VIDEO: Washington lawmakers clash over bills directed at limiting ICE officers
A heated House committee hearing on legislation aimed at limiting ICE officers in Washington was temporarily recessed after sharp exchanges between lawmakers over testimony and procedural disputes. - Stung by a court ruling, WA looks to clarify what is an ‘election’
Washington lawmakers are moving to clarify the legal definition of an election after a court overturned a felony conviction for voting in both Washington and Oregon on the same day. - Opinion: Olympia wants a 4-day work week. It won’t work out as the politicians think it will
Mark Harmsworth argues that House Bill 2611’s proposed 32-hour workweek would raise costs, strain small businesses, and undermine Washington’s economic competitiveness. - Republicans celebrate school choice in US Senate hearing, while Dems question fairness
Republicans and Democrats clashed during a U.S. Senate hearing over school choice, with supporters praising expanded options for families and critics warning the policies could deepen inequities in public education.
