logo
You Should Be Able to Tell Who's an ICE Agent

You Should Be Able to Tell Who's an ICE Agent

Mint2 days ago

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Back in March, when masked, hoodie-clad federal immigration agents were caught on camera grabbing a Tufts University student off a sidewalk and forcing her into an unmarked vehicle, it was shocking.
'Why are you hiding your faces?' a bystander can be heard asking.
It hasn't taken long for such aggressive tactics to become the norm in many US cities. But perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in and around Los Angeles, where President Donald Trump has decided to focus his administration's crackdown on undocumented immigrants, going so far as to bring in the National Guard and Marines over the objections of California officials.
LA is full of agents, from Border Patrol and Immigration to Customs Enforcement to Homeland Security Investigations, many of whom aren't easy to identify. In the resulting confusion, police officers are getting mistaken for those agents. The trust that's so critical for local law enforcement to persuade people to report crimes, regardless of their immigration status, is eroding. And fear and paranoia are high that some of the masked people walking around with guns and chasing people aren't federal agents at all, but criminals pretending to be law enforcement. There's a real worry about the overall impact on public safety.
California state Senator Sasha Renee Perez, who is sponsoring a bill to make federal agents display identification, told me police chiefs recognize the 'very dangerous' situation the Trump administration has created with its raids. She says she introduced her bill because she didn't know what to tell constituents after masked agents caused a panic in her district by pulling a high-powered rifle from the trunk of a car in a busy parking lot.
'They were asking, 'How will we be able to identify whether or not somebody's actually an ICE agent?' And 'I'm just supposed to get in a car with any masked person with a gun who claims that they're ICE?''
Numerous elected officials have been asking the same questions, given that criminals have been known to impersonate ICE agents. Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger is convinced that a staffer's Latino godson was approached by two impersonators in an unmarked car. They told him he had a 'nice truck for someone with that surname' and tried to open the door.
Lately, not a day seems to pass without a new viral video showing armed men in ski masks or neck gaiters climbing out of unmarked vehicles with out-of-state plates. Sometimes they wear tactical vests that say 'POLICE,' but almost never with name tags or badge numbers. And when bystanders ask whether they are federal agents, which agency they work for and whether they have a warrant, the men – and it's mostly men – typically refuse to answer.
There are many reasons these tactics are problematic, including the basic affront to civil liberties. Americans, after all, are accustomed to seeing the faces of law enforcement and being able to demand identification. That transparency goes a long way toward creating the conditions for public safety.
What's required is not just trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve, but also some level of communication and coordination among government agencies. Little of the latter is happening though, California Democrats continue to say. The Trump administration would likely blame the state's 'sanctuary' law for that. But nothing prohibits notifications to city or state officials about upcoming operations.
Nevertheless, in that vacuum of information, tension and confusion have been allowed to build between the public and federal immigration agents.
In suburban Pasadena, for example, elected officials have been left to guess about the identity of a man in a 'POLICE' vest who aimed a gun at a group of pedestrians. They assume he was a federal agent because he turned on the car's red and blue emergency lights before driving away. But local police weren't told of any operations.
'One question is this a law enforcement agent or someone pretending to be a law enforcement agent, and there is no good answer here,' Pasadena Mayor Victor Gordo told the Los Angeles Times.
Elsewhere, protesters have confronted undercover police detectives, thinking they were federal agents. 'It is not safe for our officers, or for others involved in any active police operations if misrepresentations or misunderstandings lead to inappropriate engagement,' Michael Dorsey, police chief of the city of Fontana, wrote on Facebook.
The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department reported that its fleet of unmarked vehicles has been targeted, too. 'All white vehicles are NOT ICE,' it posted -- and then deleted – on X. And the mayor of Huntington Park has gone so far as to propose directing his city's police to make federal agents identify themselves before raids, which he called 'state-sanctioned intimidation.'
California state Senator Scott Wiener, who has introduced a bill to prohibit federal agents from covering their faces, called the situation 'combustible.' (If enacted, such a bill, much like Perez's, would probably be impossible to enforce.)
Why the secrecy? Tom Homan, Trump's border czar, insists it's not about 'intimidation.' It's 'because they've been doxxed by the thousands,' he recently told the New York Times podcast The Daily. 'Their families have been doxxed. ICE officers' pictures have shown up on trees and telephone poles. Death threats are sky high.'
That is probably true, and if so, it's a problem. Nevertheless, letting law enforcement operate in masked secrecy, chasing down people without having to provide warrants or identification, is not a viable solution.
'Who are these people?' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass asked at a recent press conference. 'And frankly, the vests that they have on look like they ordered them from Amazon. Are they bounty hunters? Are they vigilantes? If they're federal officials, why is it that they do not identify themselves?'
These are questions that deserve answers. That there are none forthcoming from the Trump administration is just further evidence that despite what Trump says about upholding 'law and order,' the administration's deportations of random dishwashers, day laborers and landscapers has nothing to do with public safety.
More From Bloomberg Opinion:
This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Erika D. Smith is a politics and policy columnist for Bloomberg Opinion. She is a former Los Angeles Times columnist and Sacramento Bee editorial board member.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com/opinion

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Iran's nuclear programme wasn't 'obliterated' or 'set back decades', as Trump said
Iran's nuclear programme wasn't 'obliterated' or 'set back decades', as Trump said

First Post

time32 minutes ago

  • First Post

Iran's nuclear programme wasn't 'obliterated' or 'set back decades', as Trump said

Contrary to Donald Trump's assertions, Iran's nuclear infrastructure was damaged and not destroyed and experts and leaked intelligence assessments indicate the programme could be revived within months read more A satellite image shows airstrike craters over the underground centrifuge halls of the Natanz Enrichment Facility, following US airstrikes amid the Iran-Israel conflict, in Natanz County, Iran. Maxar Technologies/Reuters Despite US President Donald Trump's repeated assertions that Iran's nuclear programme has been 'obliterated' and 'set back decades,' early intelligence assessments suggest otherwise. A preliminary analysis from the US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), reported in American media, indicated that American and Israeli airstrikes on June 21 only delayed Iran's nuclear activities by a matter of months, not decades, and certainly not eliminated them. The DIA's report, though classified, was cited by multiple sources familiar with internal assessments. These officials suggested that the damage, while significant, did not dismantle the core industrial and technological infrastructure that underpins Iran's nuclear ambitions. The White House has pushed back hard against this narrative, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt calling the idea that 'unnamed Iranian officials' could know the extent of the damage 'nonsense,' asserting instead that 'their nuclear weapons program is over.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD IAEA director: Damage 'severe but not total' Echoing the cautious tone of US intelligence, Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told CBS News that while the strikes had caused severe damage, the destruction was not total. He emphasised that Iran still retained the ability to resume uranium enrichment within a matter of months, noting that the necessary capacities remained in place. He explained that Iran could operate a few cascades of centrifuges to produce enriched uranium, or even less than that. Grossi also warned against assuming that Iran's nuclear program had been eliminated. He said that, frankly, one could not claim that everything had disappeared and that nothing remained. He stressed that Iran's knowledge base and industrial capabilities were still intact, making it possible for enrichment activities to resume once operational challenges were overcome. Intercepted Iranian communications suggest limited damage The Washington Post reported that intercepted communications between senior Iranian officials seemed to show a consensus that the attacks were less devastating than initially feared. The newspaper cited four individuals with knowledge of the intercepted messages, suggesting that Iranian leadership had assessed the damage to their facilities as relatively contained. However, the credibility of these communications remains a subject of debate within intelligence circles. Another source, quoted by Reuters, confirmed their existence but labelled them 'unreliable indicators' of the real state of Iran's nuclear programme. A disputed narrative from the Trump administration Trump has remained unwavering in his version of events. In an interview with Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures, he described the operation as a 'spectacular military success,' claiming the nuclear programme was 'obliterated like nobody's ever seen before'. His defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, echoed this, insisting the strikes marked the 'end to their nuclear ambitions'. Yet, during a Pentagon press briefing, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine struck a more measured tone. Caine admitted that the full battle damage assessment was still ongoing and said it was 'too early' to determine exactly what capabilities Iran retained. He did, however, note that initial assessments showed 'extremely severe damage and destruction' at the targeted sites in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Enrichment capacity could rebound quickly Despite the high-impact nature of the strikes, experts, including Grossi believed that Iran could resume uranium enrichment relatively quickly. He said if Iran wished to do so, it would be able to start the process again. He said that Iran was a very sophisticated country in terms of nuclear technology, and that its ability to restart centrifuge operations was based on years of accumulated knowledge that could not simply be undone. Grossi also highlighted the absence of IAEA inspectors on the ground as a critical blind spot. Since the strikes, Iran has denied inspectors access to the targeted facilities, citing security and political concerns. Tehran's UN ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, insisted inspectors were 'in Iran' but said they could not access specific sites. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Khamenei and mixed Iranian messaging The response from Iran's leadership has been uneven. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reportedly dismissed the airstrikes as ineffective, saying they achieved 'nothing significant'. Yet Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi acknowledged that the damage was 'excessive and serious'. This inconsistency has fuelled speculation that Iran may be deliberately downplaying the impact while preserving the appearance of resilience. Iran's military leadership, meanwhile, has expressed scepticism over Israel's commitment to the recently declared ceasefire. Armed forces chief Abdolrahim Mousavi said Tehran was prepared to respond 'with all our power' if provoked again. Diplomatic options still on the table Despite the heightened tensions, Grossi reiterated the importance of a diplomatic resolution. He said that the situation, following the military strikes, would ultimately require a long-lasting solution, which could only be a diplomatic one. He also noted that although Iran had consistently asserted its nuclear program was intended for peaceful purposes, the IAEA had been unable to verify those claims because Iran had refused to answer very important questions. Military action, limited impact While the Trump administration has celebrated the June 21 strikes as a decisive blow against Iran's nuclear programme, a growing body of evidence from intelligence assessments and international experts suggests a far more modest result. The damage to Iran's nuclear infrastructure was 'severe' but by no means 'total,' and the core capabilities — technological, industrial, and intellectual — remain intact. Iran could, according to the IAEA, begin spinning centrifuges again within months. As Grossi warned, military strikes alone are unlikely to end Iran's nuclear ambitions. With inspectors still barred and the region on edge, the enduring solution appears to lie not in airpower but in diplomacy.

After Trump ‘terminates' trade talks, Canada scraps proposed levy: What was the Digital Services Tax, how it would hit US firms
After Trump ‘terminates' trade talks, Canada scraps proposed levy: What was the Digital Services Tax, how it would hit US firms

Indian Express

time39 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

After Trump ‘terminates' trade talks, Canada scraps proposed levy: What was the Digital Services Tax, how it would hit US firms

Two days after US President Donald Trump said he was terminating all trade discussions with Canada, Ottawa on Sunday (June 29) said it was scrapping the contentious Digital Services Tax. Trump had called the tax 'a direct and blatant attack on our Country'. It was supposed to come into effect on Monday, June 30. After Canada's walk-back, its finance minister, François-Philippe Champagne, spoke to the US trade representative Jamieson Greer on Sunday, signalling that the trade deal talks might be back on track. What is Canada's Digital Services Tax, and why was it such a sticking issue with the US? What will its revocation mean for Prime Minister Mark Carney's government? We explain. The tax aimed to collect a levy of 3% of the revenue a digital services firm made from Canadian users, above $20 million in a calendar year. In one of its more controversial clauses, payments were to be retroactive, beginning 2022. While the law had been passed earlier, payments were due from today. Among those impacted would have been major Amercian technology firms, such as Google, Meta, Apple, Amazon, etc. 'The DST was announced in 2020 to address the fact that many large technology companies operating in Canada may not otherwise pay tax on revenues generated from Canadians… While Canada was working with international partners, including the United States, on a multilateral agreement that would replace national digital services taxes, the DST was enacted to address the aforementioned taxation gap,' Canada's finance ministry said on June 29. If the law had been implemented, American companies would have had to pay roughly $2.7 billion to the Canadian government, a report in The New York Times said. Trump was vehemently opposed to the law. On Friday, he posted on Truth Social, 'We have just been informed that Canada, a very difficult Country to TRADE with… has just announced that they are putting a Digital Services Tax on our American Technology Companies, which is a direct and blatant attack on our Country… Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately. We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period.' Getting a trade deal with the US is important for Canada, which, going by US Census Bureau data, exported $412.7 billion worth of goods to the US last year. At present, Trump has slapped 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Canada and 25% on auto imports, apart from the 10% base tariff he has put on most countries. Along with this, Canada and Mexico face tariffs of 25% apparently to curb fentanyl smuggling to the US. Canada, thus, agreed to scrap the tax to take trade talks forward. 'In our negotiations on a new economic and security relationship between Canada and the United States, Canada's new government will always be guided by the overall contribution of any possible agreement to the best interests of Canadian workers and businesses. Today's announcement will support a resumption of negotiations toward the July 21, 2025, timeline set out at this month's G7 Leaders' Summit in Kananaskis,' PM Carney said on Sunday. Given that Carney had come to power mainly on a platform of standing up to Trump, this fold-up could have been embarrasing for him. However, the tax wasn't too popular within Canada either, as it could have raised the cost of digital services like hailing rides and streaming movies. Robin Guy, a leader of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, had said in July last year, 'The imposition of a retroactive discriminatory digital services tax by the federal government will not only make life more expensive for Canadian families, businesses and workers, but it will significantly harm our relationship with the United States. The government should reverse its unilateral decision that is out of step with our allies, and instead, work with our trading partners on an international solution that would better serve Canadians.' In fact, recently, many had believed that the tax's best purpose could be to use it as a bargaining chip in talks with the US.

John Oliver takes aim at Donald Trump's big beautiful bill, slams it for gutting 'medicine for the sick and food for the hungry'
John Oliver takes aim at Donald Trump's big beautiful bill, slams it for gutting 'medicine for the sick and food for the hungry'

Time of India

timean hour ago

  • Time of India

John Oliver takes aim at Donald Trump's big beautiful bill, slams it for gutting 'medicine for the sick and food for the hungry'

John Oliver hit back at Donald Trump's legislative agenda. | Credit: YouTube John Oliver shifted his focus to United States President Donald Trump on the June 29 episode of Last Week Tonight, specifically taking aim at Trump's ambitious and controversial 'big beautiful bill'. John Oliver focused on the bill's efforts to slash America's social safety net in order to facilitate the bill's proposed tax cuts, which would disproportionately benefit the wealthy. In effect, John Oliver characterized Trump's legislative agenda as empowering the richest people in America at the expense of the country's most vulnerable. The Last Week Tonight episode focused specifically on how Donald Trump's bill would impact Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Responding to Republican politicians downplaying the bill's impact, he said, "this is medicine for the sick and food for the hungry, the stakes are just higher." John Oliver accuses Donald Trump's bill of gutting Medicaid I'm heading to the Senate floor to fight back against Republicans' 'Big Beautiful Bill" that rips away health care from 17 MILLION people to give tax breaks to billionaires. — Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) June 29, 2025 John Oliver brought up reporting that claimed the bill will add trillions of dollars to America's national debt and accused Trump of misleading his base with his claims of the bill leading to a 'blue collar BOOM'. He revealed that the 'big beautiful bill' would weaken former President Barack Obama's landmark Affordable Care Act by adding more red tape to the insurance process, making it more likely for people to get kicked off their healthcare plans. He accused the proposed tightening of Medicaid work requirements to effectively serve the same purpose. John Oliver hit back at Republican politicians like Dr. Mehmet Oz and Joni Ernst, who attempted to justify these stricter work requirements, by stating that the data does not support their claims that doing so would actually increase employment in the country. Rather, John claimed that the end result of these stricter requirements would be more people, even eligible ones, simply dropping out of Medicaid altogether. John Oliver explored the bill's impact on SNAP 🚨MAJOR BREAKING: Senate Democrats have forced EVERY WORD in Trump's 900 page Big Beautiful Bill to be read on the floor before the vote. The move will delay the vote to cut Medicaid and SNAP, raise energy costs, and give tax breaks to the ultra-rich. This is historic. — CALL TO ACTIVISM (@CalltoActivism) June 29, 2025 John Oliver explored the bill's projected impact on the SNAP "food stamps" program, with the legislation planning to slash federal funding to SNAP by $287 billion over the next 10 years. John explained how these cuts would result in state Governments being forced to bear the burden of financing the SNAP program, which could result in some states further shrinking the program, or outright opting out of SNAP altogether. John Oliver believed that Republicans were being deceptive when they said the stricter work requirements for Medicaid and SNAP were done out of a commitment to meritocracy. Instead, he accused the party of facilitating the mass removal of people enrolled in Medicare and SNAP because of the added administrative hurdles they'd have to clear, making Donald Trump's bill incredibly harmful to America's most vulnerable and marginalized people. For more news and current affairs from around the world, please visit Indiatimes News. First Published: Jun 30, 2025, 14:40 IST Pulak Kumar is an entertainment and current events writer who got his start with bylines in Sportskeeda and Koi Moi. He's immensely passionate about understanding and analyzing the latest happenings in Hollywood, anime, gaming and pop culture. Read More 30/6/2025 15:31:25

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store