Masked ICE Agents, Moral Dissonance, and a Nation Divided

Los Angeles, California, June 2025. Federal agents in black ballistic vests marked with bold acronyms swarmed a neighborhood eatery at dinnertime – their identities concealed behind masks. Within minutes, chaos erupted. Patrons and neighbors, unsure who these faceless intruders were, poured into the streets in panic and protest. Some shouted “Nazis!” and “secret police!” as tensions flared. The agents responded by hurling smoke-emitting flash-bang devices to push back the crowd, sending families scrambling for cover amid the commotion and acrid haze.

“It got out of control because of the way that they showed up,” recalled San Diego City Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera, who watched in disbelief. The operation seemed designed to intimidate: “They wanted to make a show of it… at dinnertime… with assault rifles… in far more numbers than they needed. And the use of masks, I think, is incredibly concerning.” That dramatic scene was not an isolated incident in 2025 – it was emblematic of a new, unsettling normal across America’s cities and towns.

From California to New England, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have been carrying out aggressive immigration raids while obscuring their identities behind scarves, balaclavas, and gaiter-style masks. In Minneapolis, a swarm of masked ICE, FBI, and ATF officers descended on a Mexican restaurant in a heavily Latino neighborhood, prompting panicked onlookers to assume an immigration roundup was underway. In Boston, a home security camera captured hooded men in plainclothes grabbing a Tufts University doctoral student on the sidewalk – later identified as ICE officers. And in Virginia, three unidentified agents – one wearing a ski mask – hauled a man into an unmarked van inside a Charlottesville courthouse, as stunned witnesses looked on in disbelief. Each episode followed a disturbing pattern, sparking protests and public outrage.

“They just pulled this man away and threw him in an unmarked van! He may be in El Salvador tomorrow,” cried Ilene Stephens, a Charlottesville activist, after one such courthouse incident. She joined over a hundred neighbors chanting outside the building in fury. “What do we know and what can we do? I’m so angry!”

Critics say these mask-clad squads evoke some of history’s darkest forces. In Charlottesville, protesters hoisted signs likening ICE to totalitarian enforcers. “ICE = Gestapo,” read one banner in bold red letters, equating the agency’s masked raids with Nazi Germany’s secret police. Minneapolis City Councilmember Jeremiah Ellison described the sight of masked government agents as surreal: “A person who works for taxpayers, carries a gun, and is legally empowered to kill you – covers their face? The cowardice is staggering.” To many Americans, the image of faceless agents snatching people off the streets and from courthouses is more than frightening – it’s a jarring symbol of democracy’s erosion on U.S. soil. Even some law enforcement leaders have voiced concern. “How some of it was handled was tone-deaf,” admitted Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara after the chaotic Lake Street operation, noting how “heightened and tense” the issue of immigration enforcement has become in his city.

"Just Following Orders": Leadership, Law, and Anonymity

How did American immigration officers come to adopt the look of faceless commandos? ICE officials insist this change did not happen in a vacuum – they argue it was a response to real dangers faced by their agents. At a press conference in early June, ICE’s acting director, Todd Lyons, bristled at criticism of his officers’ face coverings. He said agents have been harassed and threatened by activists: people have snapped photos of agents’ name badges and posted them online alongside death threats to the officers and their families.

“I’m sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks,” Lyons told reporters, “but I’m not going to let my officers… put their lives on the line… because people don’t like what immigration enforcement is.” Lyons noted one recent operation targeted an online vigilante who was doxxing ICE personnel – publishing agents’ details and calling their families ‘terrorists.’ In that climate of intimidation, covering one’s face starts to sound like common sense.

ICE and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials also point to a practical legacy of the pandemic: during the COVID-19 pandemic, mask mandates and health precautions made face coverings routine. That precedent has lingered. There is no federal policy today that explicitly prohibits officers from wearing masks, and current ICE guidelines leave it to field commanders to decide whether face coverings are warranted. U.S. Attorney Leah Foley, the top federal prosecutor in Massachusetts, has publicly defended the use of the masked-raid tactic. She notes that local police usually must keep faces visible, but argues ICE is different. “They are now wearing masks because of the lies that are being spewed by people suggesting that they are secret police or neo-Nazis,” Foley said in a radio interview, responding to Boston officials who condemned the practice.

Foley essentially invoked the same reasoning protesters use when they cover their faces at high-risk demonstrations: the mask is for protection. If undercover cops and their families were facing credible threats, she argued, wouldn’t we allow those officers to conceal their identities during certain arrests? In her view, ICE agents are operating in a hostile environment and need that extra layer of safety.

From ICE’s perspective—and that of its allies—masked operations are about officer safety and operational security, not about instilling fear. They point out that agents still wear identifying insignia, such as ICE patches, on their vests and are legally required to identify themselves to anyone they arrest. (In the Charlottesville courthouse incident, for example, an ICE spokesperson later noted that agents had shown their credentials and a warrant to courthouse security before moving in on their target.) To ICE leadership, these steps show that despite the concealed faces, the officers remain accountable law enforcement professionals carrying out lawful duties. Any public outrage over masks, they suggest, is misdirected – it should be aimed at those who threaten violence against ICE personnel simply for doing their jobs.

Yet civil liberties advocates and local officials counter that anonymity fundamentally undermines accountability and public safety. In a May 2025 letter to DHS, U.S. Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine warned that ICE’s failure to identify itself during arrests has “led witnesses of immigration enforcement operations to justifiably question the law enforcement status, authority, and constitutionality” of what is happening. Masked, plainclothes agents sweeping people into vans can be indistinguishable from kidnappers in the eyes of bystanders – a recipe for panic and potential chaos. “Such actions put everyone at risk – the targeted individuals, the ICE officers and agents, and bystanders who may misunderstand what is happening and may attempt to intervene,” the senators wrote, urging ICE to rein in the practice. Local prosecutors echo these fears. In Virginia, Albemarle County Commonwealth’s Attorney Jim Hingeley opened an investigation after the masked courthouse grab, saying covert arrests in public venues could easily “escalate into violent confrontations” – those targeted or nearby might resist what appears to be an unlawful abduction. Transparency, they argue, is a cornerstone of public trust: when agents hide their faces, they also hide the badge that reassures citizens an arrest is legitimate. The result is a dangerous confusion.

For rank-and-file ICE agents on the ground, wearing a mask can feel like necessary armor, not just against retaliatory violence, but against being personally vilified for carrying out contentious duties. Concealing their faces spares them from immediate identification, which can prevent being doxxed or harassed later. It also creates a psychological buffer, allowing an agent to tell himself he’s “just doing my job” without feeling as much personal guilt. This distancing may provide some emotional relief to the officer, even as it deeply unnerves the public.

Trump’s Return and a Harder Line

This clash over masks comes against the backdrop of a seismic shift in immigration policy, driven by the return of Donald Trump and the revival of his hard-line agenda. After the relatively restrained approach of the previous administration, Trump’s return to power in 2025 brought a sweeping crackdown that many describe as punitive and dehumanizing. On Day One of his new term, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rescinded guidelines that had designated schools, hospitals, courthouses, and other “protected areas” as off-limits for immigration arrests. Acting DHS Secretary Benjamine Huffman wiped away those restraints, effectively declaring that nowhere was off-limits. Immigration agents were given broad discretion – essentially a green light to pursue targets even in sensitive community spaces if they deemed it necessary. The administration also quietly removed rules that had limited ICE operations in courthouses, freeing agents to act even when local authorities objected. Not surprisingly, arrests at courthouses and other once-taboo venues spiked, from the halls of justice in Virginia to neighborhoods like the one in Minneapolis where a joint federal raid unfolded without any advance notice to city officials.

President Trump and his aides have also pressed ICE to dramatically boost deportation numbers, floating targets as high as 600,000 removals per year – far above historical records. Ambitious quotas and “get tough” rhetoric have filtered down to ground level. Agents have been instructed to cast a wider net, leading to more “collateral” arrests of bystanders or family members who happen to be present when a target is taken. In the frenzy, even U.S. citizens and legal residents have been mistakenly detained – incidents that watchdog groups say are on the rise. Officials warn that eliminating safe zones and imposing numeric goals puts pressure on ICE to show results at any cost, encouraging more indiscriminate tactics. The result, critics argue, is an atmosphere where immigrants – and anyone who might look or sound like an immigrant – are treated as enemy combatants rather than as human beings with rights. The pervasive labeling of all undocumented people as “criminals,” one civil rights report noted, has provoked the dehumanization of not only immigrants but entire communities of color. In reality, government data show no link between immigration and higher crime, but fear and propaganda have helped justify draconian measures on the ground.

Top administration figures have actively reinforced this hardline narrative. In one high-profile case this spring, ICE agents in Boston detained Rümeysa Öztürk – the Tufts PhD student mentioned earlier – in a stark example of immigration enforcement being wielded as an ideological weapon. Öztürk, 30, was abruptly bundled into an unmarked car by masked ICE operatives on March 25. The trigger for her detention? She had co-authored a student newspaper op-ed criticizing the Israeli government’s policies. Shortly before her arrest, the State Department abruptly revoked her student visa without notice. A DHS official then publicly accused Öztürk – a Turkish Muslim scholar – of supporting Hamas and being a threat who “relishes the killing of Americans.” These incendiary claims proved to be unfounded. A leaked State Department review found no ties between her and any terrorist organization. A federal judge, William Sessions, intervened to free Öztürk after 45 days in custody, noting that her detention “raises very significant due process concerns” and “potentially chills the speech of… millions… who are not citizens.” The judge’s words underscored a chilling point: under a regime willing to conflate dissent with terrorism, immigration law has become a tool for silencing critics, with masked ICE squads as its blunt instrument. Öztürk’s lawyers called her case a “constitutional violation” from the start. To her supporters, the image of a hooded agent cornering a young woman on a quiet Somerville street was the human face of Trump’s revived policies – a face contorted by fear.

Even elected officials have not been spared. On May 9, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka – an outspoken critic of Trump’s immigration agenda – arrived to join several U.S. Congressmembers in inspecting a newly opened, privately run ICE detention center in New Jersey. Baraka had been leading protests against the 1,000-bed facility, arguing that it should never be opened in his community. That day, he was met not with dialogue but with handcuffs. Masked federal agents grabbed and arrested the mayor when he tried to accompany the congressional delegation on its tour. Baraka says he had stepped back after being asked to leave, yet officers suddenly seized him in what witnesses described as a “chaotic scene.” Video from the rally showed shoving and shouting as faceless ICE police hustled away the mayor. The arrest of a sitting U.S. mayor for peacefully protesting federal policy was virtually unprecedented. “This shouldn’t have happened,” Baraka said afterward, calling it “completely insane” and “a scary moment in the history of this country as we watch democracy slip between our fingers.” Civil rights groups noted that even public officials are being treated like targets if they stand in the administration’s way. (Baraka was released after several hours; he has since filed a lawsuit accusing federal authorities of malicious prosecution and abuse of power.)

All of these incidents – the San Diego raid, the Charlottesville snatch, the student’s ordeal, the mayor’s arrest – reflect a deep ideological divide in America. To Trump’s staunch supporters and many within ICE, such operations are seen as tough but necessary enforcement of sovereignty and law. They view the agents as heroic patriots under siege, unfairly demonized by “open borders” advocates. To opponents, these same actions confirm their worst fears: that the United States is sliding toward authoritarianism, with the masking of agents symbolizing a lack of accountability and truth. The hardline shift has also put ICE’s personnel under immense pressure to produce results at any cost. With quotas to fill and no place off-limits, agents often set aside personal misgivings and adopt an impersonal “just doing my job” mindset to follow orders that might otherwise trouble their conscience.

Anonymity, Aggression, and the Psychology of Enforcement

Beyond the politics, the phenomenon of mask-wearing raises profound psychological questions. Why does covering one’s face change an officer’s mindset or behavior? Social scientists have long studied the psychology of anonymity in institutional violence, and their findings are sobering. When individuals are de-individuated – stripped of personal identity cues – they often become more aggressive and less restrained. In classic experiments, people concealed by costumes or uniforms delivered harsher punishments than those whose names and faces were known. Real-world data echo this. A study of violent incidents in Northern Ireland found that assailants who masked their identities were far more likely to inflict serious injuries and commit additional violence compared to those who didn’t disguise themselves. With anonymity comes a sense of impunity. The masked ICE agent smashing through a restaurant door may feel shielded not only from identification, but also from moral consequence, more an instrument of the state than an individually accountable person. In psychological terms, this deindividuation weakens an officer’s usual self-restraint and empathy, making it easier to commit acts that would otherwise weigh on the conscience.

Anonymity doesn’t just embolden negative behavior; it can also dampen positive impulses by reducing personal accountability. People often act differently when their deeds are unobserved. For example, it’s commonly assumed that public recognition spurs people to do good, implying that without recognition, individuals may feel less motivated to act generously. In law enforcement, that dynamic flips: when harsh actions are hidden behind a mask, the usual social and moral checks on cruelty weaken. An agent who knows no one will recognize him may feel fewer qualms about using heavy-handed tactics. Not being seen as an individual in that moment makes it easier to do things that might otherwise trigger guilt or second thoughts.

This concept directly relates to moral disengagement. Moral disengagement, as defined by psychologist Albert Bandura, describes the mental process by which people convince themselves that standards of morality don’t apply to a particular action, allowing them to do bad things without feeling like bad people. For ICE agents tasked with arrests that can split families apart or detain longtime community members who have no violent record, there is immense moral strain. Many agents undoubtedly enter the job believing in law and order, perhaps telling themselves they will be removing dangerous felons. But the reality of raiding homes or courthouses and dragging away mothers, students, and workers, many with deep ties in the community, can conflict with personal morals and basic human compassion. To cope, agents engage in mental reframing to justify their actions.

Dehumanization is one such mechanism. By regarding their targets not as ordinary people but as a faceless category of “illegals,” “criminal aliens,” or national security threats, agents blunt the pangs of guilt or doubt. If the person being arrested is seen not as a neighbor or a parent but as a dangerous Other, then harsh treatment feels more justified. Indeed, dehumanizing language is a standard tool of moral disengagement: portraying a group as inferior or menacing makes it psychologically easier to treat members of that group without empathy. As one immigration advocate noted, when leaders persistently brand immigrants as criminals, it “provokes the dehumanization” of entire groups, laying the groundwork for cruelty.

Other mechanisms of moral disengagement likely come into play among ICE personnel. Displacement of responsibility is one of the classic “I’m just following orders” mindsets. An officer can tell himself that any harm inflicted is ultimately the result of the immigrant’s own choices (for breaking the law) or the politicians who set the rules, rather than a personal decision he is making. We saw this mentality on display during the 2018 family separation crisis, when some Border Patrol agents defended even wrenching children from parents by saying the parents “broke the law” and left the officers no choice. Diffusion of responsibility also operates in large bureaucracies: each agent is just one cog in a machine. When a masked squad tackles a man in a courthouse hallway, no single agent may feel fully accountable for the terror on that man’s face – in their minds, “we did it as a team, as part of a sanctioned operation.” ICE’s increasingly militarized approach, complete with a strict chain of command and mission briefings, fosters this diffusion.

Meanwhile, euphemistic language helps sanitize the brutality of what is happening. People aren’t “kidnapped” from their community; they are “apprehended” in an “enforcement action.” Children aren’t put in cages; they go to “family residential centers” or, in past government jargon, “tender age shelters.” Such sterile terms, reminiscent of Orwellian doublespeak, allow agents and the public to distance themselves from the real human suffering involved mentally.

Finally, there is the issue of cognitive dissonance – the mental discomfort that arises from holding contradictory beliefs or values. Most law enforcement officers see themselves as protectors of the innocent and upholders of justice. Yet immigration crackdowns often ensnare people who pose no threat: asylum seekers, students, workers, or even U.S. citizens mistaken for someone else. When an ICE agent realizes that a person he just detained is, say, actually an American citizen or a long-time resident with U.S.-born children, how does he reconcile that with his self-image as a “good guy”? The dissonance can be intense. To resolve it, the agent might double down on justifications – telling himself that “the law is the law,” or that collateral damage is unavoidable in the greater mission of deterrence. Alternatively, he might minimize the importance of the victim’s suffering: “They’ll be fine; it’s not my fault they didn’t have papers,” and so on. Some may even experience a warped sense of power or righteousness that overrides empathy, especially if colleagues reinforce such attitudes. Here again, the presence of a mask can amplify the effect. By obscuring one’s face, an officer psychologically distances himself from the person in front of him. Eye contact and facial expressions are powerful humanizing forces; remove them, and it becomes easier to treat the person as an abstraction – a case number, an “illegal” – rather than a fellow human being from the neighborhood.

Language, Propaganda, and Cultural Desensitization

A tragic synergy exists between the psychological mindset of ICE agents and the charged language emanating from political leaders. President Trump has long employed inflammatory rhetoric to describe immigrants – branding them “drug dealers,” “rapists,” “animals,” and framing the influx at the southern border as an “invasion.” This language is more than hyperbole; it is a strategic approach. By painting a frightening caricature of undocumented people, it primes both the public and the rank-and-file enforcers to accept extreme measures as necessary. As researchers have documented, governments often justify harsh actions through fear-mongering and the dehumanization of entire groups of people. Historically, such broad vilification has paved the way for abuses of power against marginalized peoples. In today’s America, talk of immigrant “invaders” or “terrorists” serves to desensitize the public to scenes of families being herded into vans or children crying behind chain-link fences. What once might have shocked the national conscience becomes, through repeated exposure and official spin, almost routine.

Media coverage has also influenced cultural perception. During the 2018–2020 period, for instance, images of toddlers wrapped in Mylar blankets on detention center floors outraged many Americans – but over time, others grew numb to that spectacle of state-inflicted trauma. Now, in 2025, with Trump’s hardline policies back in force, we see both heightened outrage in some quarters and resigned acceptance in others. Communities directly impacted – often immigrant and minority communities – respond viscerally, staging protests like those in Charlottesville and San Diego, where locals immediately mobilized at the sight of masked men grabbing their neighbors. On the other hand, much of Trump’s political base remains supportive of these tactics or at least willing to look the other way. Right-wing media and officials reinforce a counter-narrative: they highlight any gang members or fugitives caught in ICE sweeps to justify the overall crackdown, and they accuse critics of being hypocritical or soft on crime. (In one ironic jab, a prominent Trump ally pointed out that some of the same lawmakers decrying ICE’s face coverings had once mandated mask-wearing for public health reasons – as if a COVID mask were equivalent to tactical anonymity. It’s a false equivalence, but a telling example of the propaganda battles underway.)

This war of words extends to how the ICE agents themselves are depicted. In pro-enforcement circles, they are lionized as “heroes in harm’s way,” literally forced to shield their identities from “mobs” and “extremists” who wish them ill. The Trump administration seized on incidents like the San Diego clash, with an official social media account blasting Councilmember Elo-Rivera for supposedly slandering agents as “terrorists.” The administration’s message is clear: it is ICE, not the immigrants, that is under attack, besieged by unruly crowds, meddling local politicians, and left-wing agitators. This narrative serves a dual purpose: it rallies public sympathy for the agents (justifying more aggressive crackdowns) and it further demonizes those being arrested (implying that anyone who resists or inspires protest must be hazardous). Within such a storyline, an ICE officer can cast himself as the good guy executing a challenging job in a hostile world – a sense of mission that bolsters his morale and helps sweep aside any personal doubts. Through constant repetition of phrases like “criminal aliens” and “illegal invaders,” the humanity of migrants is steadily eroded in the public imagination. And when a man is violently taken away in front of his children, the moral shock is dulled for some onlookers – after all, they’ve been told he was a criminal who didn’t belong here. In this way, language and propaganda lower the psychological barriers to cruelty, for both the enforcers and the society that permits them to act.

The Mask and the Mirror

Ultimately, the image of a masked ICE agent in 2025 holds up a mirror to America’s soul. It forces us to ask: Who have we become, and what are we willing to justify or condemn in the name of law and order? To the bystander in Charlottesville who lunged forward demanding to see a warrant, that faceless man hauling someone into a van was the embodiment of lawlessness – a nightmare figure of oppression. To the ICE officer beneath the mask, perhaps it was the opposite: he might see himself as an unsung guardian, protecting his nation while needing to shield his identity for his safety. Between those two perceptions lies a chasm of mistrust, fear, and moral conflict.

It’s tempting to cast one side as hero and the other as villain, but reality is more complicated. History will no doubt judge harshly the cruelties of this era – separating children from parents, using immigration law to punish political speech, and dragging people away without transparency or due process. The comparisons to the Gestapo and other notorious forces underscore the peril of allowing “just following orders” to excuse abuses. However, it’s essential to acknowledge that many ICE agents are caught in a moral crossfire. Some are likely experiencing moral injury – the psychological harm of acting against their own ethical beliefs – even if they would never openly admit it. Others have fully embraced the administration’s worldview, insulating themselves from guilt by viewing their work as a righteous mission. In either case, the masks they wear are more than just physical protection; they serve as a form of psychological armor. Behind a mask, an agent can shut out the pleading eyes of a terrified father or the wailing of a child. He can, in that moment, try to feel less like a person inflicting pain and more like a faceless instrument of enforcement. This transformation may help him sleep at night, but it comes at the cost of eroding his empathy—and our collective humanity.

America now faces a pivotal choice: continue down this path of faceless enforcement and fractured values, or pull back and reaffirm that even when enforcing the law, transparency and humanity must prevail. The masked raids of 2025 have laid bare the stakes. As one Virginia public defender warned, if this continues, “something terrible is going to happen” – not only the risk of violence if frightened citizens or local police mistake an ICE operation for a kidnapping and intervene, but also the slower, insidious erosion of the moral bonds that hold society together. When agents of the state hide their faces from the people, they send a message: We are not accountable to you. In a democracy, that is a profoundly dangerous message.

In the final calculus, the masks may protect the flesh-and-blood officers from immediate harm, but they exact a heavy price on the nation’s conscience. The masks shield individual agents, yet they expose the soul of a government willing to trade openness for expedience and fear. Now, as masked ICE agents roam our streets, we must ask: Who are “we” now? The answer may depend on whether we as a nation choose to remove the masks – both literal and figurative – and confront the human reality of what is being done in America’s name. Only by peeling away those layers of anonymity and propaganda can the United States reckon with the moral dissonance of this crackdown and find a path forward that safeguards both its people and its principles.

References:

• 
  Civil Rights.org. (2025, February 2). The human costs of Trump’s immigration crackdown. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. https://civilrights.org/blog/the-human-costs-of-trumps-immigration-crackdown/:contentReference[oaicite:87]{index=87}:contentReference[oaicite:88]{index=88}

• Hausman, S. (2025, April 23). Protest erupts over arrests at Albemarle County Courthouse. Virginia Public Radio (WVTF). https://www.wvtf.org/news/2025-04-23/protest-erupts-over-mysterious-arrest-at-albemarle-courthouse:contentReference[oaicite:89]{index=89}:contentReference[oaicite:90]{index=90}

• Kaste, M. (2025, June 6). ICE raids grow tense as protesters confront immigration agents. NPR News. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/06/ice-raids-grow-tense-as-protesters-confront-immigration-agents:contentReference[oaicite:91]{index=91}:contentReference[oaicite:92]{index=92}

• Mehrotra, D., & Cameron, D. (2025, June 4). ICE quietly scales back rules for courthouse raids. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/ice-quietly-scales-back-rules-for-courthouse-raids/:contentReference[oaicite:93]{index=93}:contentReference[oaicite:94]{index=94}

• National Immigration Forum. (2025, May 1). The first 100 days of the second Trump administration: Key immigration-related actions and developments. https://immigrationforum.org/article/the-first-100-days-of-the-second-trump-administration-key-immigration-related-actions-and-developments/:contentReference[oaicite:95]{index=95}:contentReference[oaicite:96]{index=96}

• Olson, W. (2025, May 18). ICE agents routinely mask up when seizing people – That’s wrong. Cato at Liberty Blog. https://www.cato.org/blog/ice-agents-seizing-people-now-routinely-wear-masks-thats-wrong:contentReference[oaicite:97]{index=97}:contentReference[oaicite:98]{index=98}

• Silke, A. (2003). Deindividuation, anonymity, and violence: Findings from Northern Ireland. Journal of Social Psychology, 143(4), 493–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540309598458:contentReference[oaicite:99]{index=99}

• Sullivan, J. (2025, May 9). Tufts student Rumeysa Ozturk was freed from a Louisiana detention center after a judge ordered her release. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/05/09/rumeysa-ozturk-ice-release-vermont/:contentReference[oaicite:100]{index=100}:contentReference[oaicite:101]{index=101}

• Warner, M. R., & Kaine, T. (2025, May 23). Letter urging DHS and ICE to require agents identify themselves and limit use of face coverings [Press release]. Office of Senator Mark R. Warner. https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2025/5/warner-kaine-push-ice-to-require-agents-identify-themselves-limit-use-of-masks-and-face-coverings-during-enforcement-operations:contentReference[oaicite:102]{index=102}:contentReference[oaicite:103]{index=103}

• WBUR News. (2025, June 6). Breaking down the debate in Mass. over ICE agents wearing masks [Morning Edition Newsletter]. WBUR.org. https://www.wbur.org/news/2025/06/06/ice-agents-masks-michelle-wu-leah-foley:contentReference[oaicite:104]{index=104}:contentReference[oaicite:105]{index=105}

• WGBH News (Betancourt, S.). (2025, May 9). Rümeysa Öztürk released from ICE detention after order from Vermont judge. GBH News. https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2025-05-09/rumeysa-ozturk-released-from-ice-detention-after-order-from-vermont-judge:contentReference[oaicite:106]{index=106}:contentReference[oaicite:107]{index=107}

• Yahoo News (Burke, M.). (2025, May 17). Dems who want ICE agents unmasked ‘mandated mask wearing’ for Americans, GOP congressman says. Yahoo.com. (Referenced for political reactions)