Face-covered ICE officers raise alarm nationwide
What used to be rare is now routine. Under President Donald Trump's administration, these masked agents have become the face of a large immigration crackdown. Their presence has caused worry, confusion, and growing public concern.
By mid-2025, the masked officer has become a powerful symbol of the administration's push for mass deportations. Critics say this sends a scary message—law enforcement without responsibility. Supporters say the masks are needed to protect officers who face real threats in their work.
The use of masks at this scale is something new in American law enforcement. These agents are not working in secret or as part of special units—they operate openly, but without showing their faces. This has raised serious questions about public oversight, trust, and accountability.
Officials from the Trump administration say the masks are necessary because immigration agents have been facing more threats, both online and in real life. Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said last month that the safety of agents and their families comes first. "I'm sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks," Lyons said. "But I'm not going to let my officers or their families be put at risk just because people don't like immigration enforcement."
Not everyone agrees. Democratic politicians and civil rights groups say the masks make people more afraid and take away the public's right to hold law enforcement responsible. In a letter to Lyons, several Democratic senators said the sight of masked agents during raids at restaurants and workplaces "adds to the fear and confusion" and seems like a way to avoid being held accountable.
The issue also touches a cultural nerve. In American movies and stories, people who cover their faces are often shown as criminals—robbers, bandits, or mysterious vigilantes. Even in comic books, masked heroes are sometimes criticized for hiding their identities. And in American law, people are usually expected to face their accusers. That makes the current use of masks by law enforcement feel even more troubling to many.
The issue is also tied to recent political history. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump and many of his supporters opposed mask mandates, saying masks were a sign of government overreach. More recently, Trump said that protestors who wear masks should be arrested—something critics now call hypocritical, since his administration is allowing federal agents to hide their faces.
"This is dangerous territory," said Tobias Winright, a former police officer and professor of moral theology at St. Patrick's Pontifical University in Ireland. "When the police hide their identities, it takes away accountability. If you're doing the right thing, why hide your face?"
In the past, people have fought for more police transparency, pushing for officers to wear body cameras and display name tags or badge numbers. However, the use of masks by regular law enforcement is new in the U.S., and it's raising significant concerns. "This isn't just about new tactics," Winright said. "It's about changing the values we expect from law enforcement."
As the immigration raids continue and more images of masked agents appear in the media, the debate is likely to grow. For many Americans, these covered faces are not just practical tools—they represent a government that is becoming harder to see and harder to question.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Forward
3 hours ago
- Japan Forward
Do Not Open Japan-US Trade Deal to Distorted Interpretation
このページを 日本語 で読む A trade deal was concluded by the Shigeru Ishiba administration and the Donald Trump administration. But, were the provisions of the agreement actually finalized? It is difficult to dispel doubts on that score. There are stark differences in how the Japanese and US sides explain provisions on new investment in the United States. This is a cause for concern in the actual implementation of the agreement. One of the main pillars of the Japan-US agreement sets reciprocal tariffs and auto tariffs the US imposes on Japanese imports at 15%. However, no written agreement has been drawn up. Isn't that the cause of the differences in perception between the two sides? Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba should have spoken directly with President Trump immediately after the agreement was reached to share his views. His failure to do so has created a major problem. If things continue as they are, it is possible that the US side will try to force its own interpretation on Japan. If that were to happen, Japan's national interest might well suffer damage. The Prime Minister and Minister for Economic Revitalization Ryosei Akazawa should clarify the reasons for these differing perceptions during the extraordinary Diet session that convened on August 1. They have a duty to explain to the satisfaction of the Japanese people that the agreement will be appropriately implemented. US President Donald Trump speaks at the White House on July 31 (©Reuters via Kyodo) Regarding Japanese investment in the United States, Trump posted on social media that Japan will invest $550 billion USD (approximately ¥80 trillion JPY) in the United States. Furthermore, he said, the US will receive 90% of the profits. In response, the Japan side has explained that the $550 billion in question is actually the upper limit for investments, loans, and loan guarantees. Of this, the "90%" of the profits the US would stand to make from the deal are from investment projects. That amounts to just 1% to 2% of the $550 billion, according to Akazawa. As for the issue of rice, the US side claims that Japan's imports of American rice will increase by 75%. However, Japan has not provided any specific details. Won't this really amount to sacrificing Japan's agricultural sector? US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has also declared that he intends to review Japan's compliance with the agreement quarterly. He has further threatened that tariffs will be raised to 25% if Trump is not satisfied. That would provide leeway for Trump to unilaterally scrap the agreement. The lack of a joint document sharing a mutual understanding of what the agreement entails has left a legacy of problems. The Japanese side prioritized an early conclusion to the talks. That allowed the delay of the time-consuming task of hammering out a written agreement. Their excuse was to avoid a situation where an agreement could not be reached by the Trump-imposed deadline of August 1. On that date, Trump's reciprocal tariffs on Japan were scheduled to rise to 25%. Even if that is true, it will end up counterproductive if the agreement comes to be distorted by the US interpretation. Above all, the Ishiba government should urge the Trump administration to quickly align their respective views. We should realize that, unless both sides share a mutual understanding, economic uncertainty from Trump's tariffs will not dissipate. Author: Editorial Board, The Sankei Shimbun このページを 日本語 で読む
The Province
3 hours ago
- The Province
The two ways Trump's tariffs on Canada could collapse — despite his fight to keep them
The courts are considering whether they're even legal under U.S. law, and the American economy has yet to feel the pain of higher prices Dubbing it "Liberation Day," U.S. President Donald Trump announces his plan to enact sweeping new reciprocal tariffs worldwide, on April 2, 2025. Photo by Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images/File WASHINGTON, D.C. — Time's up. On Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump raised the tariff rate on Canadian goods not covered under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) from 25 to 35 per cent, saying they 'have to pay a fair rate.' The White House claims it's because of Canada's failure to curb the 'ongoing flood of fentanyl and other illicit drugs.' U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, however, show that fentanyl seizures from Canada make up less than 0.1 per cent of total U.S. seizures of the drug; most smuggling comes across the Mexican border. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors But the future of Trump's policy also rests on shaky ground, and the tariffs could come crashing down even if Canada can't reach a deal at some point. Imposed through a controversially declared 'national emergency' under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the tariffs come with essentially three paths for relief to Canadian exporters and their American customers: the courts and the economy. And there's always the wildcard: that the president changes his mind. Without relying on that, National Post looks at two very possible ways out of all this: The courts: There is a big question hanging over whether Trump's tariffs are even legal under the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress powers over trade. Trump has bypassed that by claiming he's using presidential IEEPA emergency powers. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. On Thursday, the Washington, D.C.-based Federal Circuit Court of Appeals convened an en banc hearing for oral arguments in challenges to Trump's use of IEEPA. The 11 judges questioned whether the law meant for sanctioning adversaries or freezing assets during emergencies grants Trump the power to impose tariffs, with one judge noting, 'IEEPA doesn't even mention the word 'tariffs.'' The White House, meanwhile, says the law grants the president 'broad and flexible' emergency powers, including the ability to regulate imports. 'Based on the tenor and questions of the arguments, it appears that the challengers have the better odds of prevailing,' Thomas Berry, the CATO Institute's director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, said in a statement. 'Several judges peppered the government's attorney with skeptical questions about why a broad term in IEEPA like 'regulate importation' should be read to allow the president to unilaterally impose tariffs.' Essential reading for hockey fans who eat, sleep, Canucks, repeat. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Trump's lawyers claim his executive order provides the justifications for the tariffs — in Canada's case, fentanyl. But Berry said 'those justifications would not matter if IEEPA simply does not authorize tariffs in the first place. That is the cleanest and simplest way to resolve this case, and it appears that the Federal Circuit may be leaning toward that result.' A decision is expected this month, and if it's a resounding push back from the judges' panel, said Andrew Hale, a senior policy analyst at Heritage Foundation, the Supreme Court may not even take up the case. If so, he says, 'these Liberation Day tariffs and everything that's been imposed under emergency legislation, IEEPA, that all evaporates.' At that point, the White House would not be able to declare across-the-board tariffs against countries. Instead, it would have to rely on laws allowing tariffs to be imposed on specific products that are found to threaten U.S. national security, like those currently imposed on Canadian steel and lumber. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The economy: The other path to tariff relief is through economic pressure. If Americans start to see higher prices and economic uncertainty, and push back at the ballot box — or threaten to do so — it could force Trump to reverse course. The most recent figures show that U.S. inflation, based on the Consumer Price Index, hit around 2.7 per cent in July. That's a slight rise, fuelled by rising prices for food, transportation and used cars. But it's still close to the Federal Reserve target of two per cent. U.S. unemployment rose slightly to 4.2 per cent in July, while far fewer jobs were created than expected, and consumer confidence rose two points but is still several points lower than it was in January. Overall, most economists agree that risks of a U.S. recession over the next 12 months are relatively low, but skepticism over growth remains high. 'Our outlook is for slower growth in the U.S., but no recession,' said Gus Faucher, chief economist of The PNC Financial Services Group. He notes that the 'tariffs are going to be a drag' because they are a tax increase on imports. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Economists have said price inflation from tariffs is not yet being felt in the U.S. but believe it's inevitable. 'Trump's tariff madness adds a great deal to the risks of a recession,' said Steven Hanke, professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University who served on President Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors. 'With tariffs, Americans are going to be paying a big new beautiful sales tax on goods and services imported into the U.S., and taxes slow things down. Taxes don't stimulate.' It is surprising that higher U.S. prices haven't happened yet, said Jonathan Gruber, chairman of the economics department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But he explained that it's likely a reflection of the duration of contracts and the fact that import sellers haven't yet put up prices — 'because they were hoping it wouldn't be real, like they'd wake up from this nightmare.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'I think we start to see the effect on prices by the end of the year,' said Gruber. The trouble for Canada, however, is that the Canadian economy is starting from a much weaker position, with higher unemployment, lower consumer confidence, and a slowing GDP, on top of the trade tensions. So, trying to wait things out for the U.S. to feel the pinch will be even more painful for Canadians. And any American downturn will also reverberate north. 'As Uncle Sam goes, so goes Canada,' said Hanke. Gruber agrees with that, but with a caveat. 'It's all bad in the short run and good in the long run,' he says. He believes the U.S. is 'weak and getting weaker' and that Canada should start taking advantage of how the U.S. is making opportunities for other countries to invest in themselves. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'We're not investing in our future. We're killing our education. We're killing our research. We're not allowing in immigrants,' he said, explaining the weakening of the U.S. economy. 'We're basically setting the stage for long-run economic slower growth.' Meanwhile, China is doubling down on investment, research and other longer-term policies. 'Canada and other countries need to do the same,' Gruber said. And as for when a backlash could lead to a reversal in the U.S., Gruber points to two factors. 'It's got to be high inflation, and Trump's opponents need to make sure that the voters understand that's Trump's fault.' National Post tmoran@ Read More Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our newsletters here. News News Tennis Columnists Vancouver Canucks
Winnipeg Free Press
4 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
China pushes back at US demands to stop buying Russian and Iranian oil
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. and Chinese officials may be able to settle many of their differences to reach a trade deal and avert punishing tariffs, but they remain far apart on one issue: the U.S. demand that China stop purchasing oil from Iran and Russia. 'China will always ensure its energy supply in ways that serve our national interests,' China's Foreign Ministry posted on X on Wednesday following two days of trade negotiations in Stockholm, responding to the U.S. threat of a 100% tariff. 'Coercion and pressuring will not achieve anything. China will firmly defend its sovereignty, security and development interests,' the ministry said. The response is notable at a time when both Beijing and Washington are signaling optimism and goodwill about reaching a deal to keep commercial ties between the world's two largest economies stable — after climbing down from sky-high tariffs and harsh trade restrictions. It underscores China's confidence in playing hardball when dealing with the Trump administration, especially when trade is linked to its energy and foreign policies. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, emerging from the talks, told reporters that when it comes to Russian oil purchases, the 'Chinese take their sovereignty very seriously.' 'We don't want to impede on their sovereignty, so they would like to pay a 100% tariff,' Bessent said. On Thursday, he called the Chinese 'tough' negotiators, but said China's pushback hasn't stalled the negotiations. 'I believe that we have the makings of a deal,' Bessent told CNBC. Gabriel Wildau, managing director of the consultancy Teneo, said he doubts President Donald Trump would actually deploy the 100% tariff. 'Realizing those threats would derail all the recent progress and probably kill any chance' for Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping to announce a trade deal if they should meet this fall, Wildau said. In seeking to restrict oil sales by Russia and Iran, a major source of revenue for both countries, the U.S. wants to reduce the funding available for their militaries, as Moscow pursues its war against Ukraine and Tehran funds militant groups across the Middle East. China plays hardball When Trump unveiled a sweeping plan for tariffs on dozens of countries in April, China was the only country that retaliated. It refused to give in to U.S. pressure. 'If the U.S. is bent on imposing tariffs, China will fight to the end, and this is China's consistent official stance,' said Tu Xinquan, director of the China Institute for WTO Studies at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing. WTO is the acronym for the World Trade Organization. Negotiating tactics aside, China may also suspect that the U.S. won't follow through on its threat, questioning the importance Trump places on countering Russia, Tu said. Scott Kennedy, senior adviser and trustee chair in Chinese Business and Economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said Beijing is unlikely to change its posture when it sees inconsistencies in U.S. foreign policy goals toward Russia and Iran, whereas Beijing's policy support for Moscow is consistent and clear. It's also possible that Beijing may want to use it as another negotiating tool to extract more concessions from Trump, Kennedy said. Danny Russel, a distinguished fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said Beijing now sees itself as 'the one holding the cards in its struggle with Washington.' He said Trump has made it clear he wants a 'headline-grabbing deal' with Xi, 'so rejecting a U.S. demand to stop buying oil from Iran or Russia is probably not seen as a deal‑breaker, even if it generates friction and a delay.' Continuing to buy oil from Russia preserves Xi's 'strategic solidarity' with Russian President Vladimir Putin and significantly reduces the economic costs for China, Russel said. 'Beijing simply can't afford to walk away from the oil from Russia and Iran,' he said. 'It's too important a strategic energy supply, and Beijing is buying it at fire‑sale prices.' China depends on oil from Russia and Iran A 2024 report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that roughly 80% to 90% of the oil exported by Iran went to China. The Chinese economy benefits from the more than 1 million barrels of Iranian oil it imports per day. After the Iranian parliament floated a plan to shut down the Strait of Hormuz in June following U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, China spoke out against closing the critical oil transit route. China also is an important customer for Russia, but is second to India in buying Russian seaborne crude oil exports. In April, Chinese imports of Russian oil rose 20% over the previous month to more than 1.3 million barrels per day, according to the KSE Institute, an analytical center at the Kyiv School of Economics. This past week, Trump said the U.S. will impose a 25% tariff on goods from India, plus an additional import tax because of India's purchasing of Russian oil. India's Foreign Ministry said Friday its relationship with Russia was 'steady and time-tested.' Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff and a top policy adviser, said Trump has been clear that it is 'not acceptable' for India to continue financing the Ukraine war by purchasing oil from Russia. 'People will be shocked to learn that India is basically tied with China in purchasing Russian oil,' Miller said on Fox News Channel's 'Sunday Morning Futures.' He said the U.S. needs 'to get real about dealing with the financing of this war.' Congress demands action Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, is pushing for sanctions and tariffs on Russia and its financial backers. In April, he introduced a bill that would authorize the president to impose tariffs as high as 500% not only on Russia but on any country that 'knowingly' buys oil, uranium, natural gas, petroleum products or petrochemical products from Russia. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. 'The purpose of this legislation is to break the cycle of China — a communist dictatorship — buying oil below market price from Putin's Russia, which empowers his war machine to kill innocent Ukrainian civilians,' Graham said in a June statement. The bill has 84 co-sponsors in the 100-seat Senate. A corresponding House version has been introduced, also with bipartisan support. Republicans say they stand ready to move on the sanctions legislation if Trump asks them to do so, but the bill is on hold for now. ___ Associated Press writers David McHugh in Frankfurt and Rajesh Roy in New Delhi and researcher Yu Bing in Beijing contributed to the report.
