ICE can’t be trusted. Can California force accountability?
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
- California became the first state in the nation to ban masks on law enforcement officers.
- Another measure would ban California state and local officers from moonlighting for the feds.
Before Minneapolis was left to mourn the death of Renee Nicole Good, there was George Floyd.
Same town, same sorrow, same questions — what becomes of society when you can’t trust the authorities? What do you do when the people tasked with upholding the law break the rules, lie and even kill?
California is pushing to answer that question, with laws and legislation meant to combat what is increasingly a rogue federal police force that is seemingly acting, too often violently, without restraint. That’s putting it in the most neutral, least inflammatory terms.
“California has a solemn responsibility to lead and to use every lever of power that we have to protect our residents, to fight back against this administration and their violations of the law, and to set an example for other states about what is possible,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco).
This month, California became the first state in the nation to ban masks on law enforcement officers with the No Secret Police Act, which Wiener wrote. The federal government quickly tied that new rule up in court, with the first hearing scheduled Wednesday in Los Angeles.
Now, Wiener and others are pushing for more curbs. A measure by state Assemblyman Isaac G. Bryan (D-Los Angeles) would ban our state and local officers from moonlighting for the feds — something they are currently allowed to do, though it is unclear how many take advantage of that loophole.
A young protester narrowly avoided being killed but was left permanently blind in one eye after a Department of Homeland Security agent fired a nonlethal round at close range during a Santa Ana protest last week, according to family of the victim.
“Their tactics have been shameful,” Bryan recently said of immigration enforcement. He pointed out that when our local cops mask up and do immigration work after hours, it leads to a serious lack of trust in their day jobs.
Wiener also introduced another measure, the No Kings Act. It would open up a new path for citizens to sue federal agents who violate their constitutional rights, because although local and state authorities can be personally sued, the ability to hold a federal officer accountable in civil court is much narrower right now.
George Retes learned that the hard way. The Iraq war vet was dragged out of his car in Ventura County by federal agents last year. Although he is a U.S. citizen, agents sprayed him with chemicals, knelt on his neck and back despite pleas that he could not breathe, detained him, took his DNA and fingerprints, strip-searched him, denied him any ability to wash off the chemicals, held him for three days without access to help, then released him with no charges and no explanation, he said.
Currently, he has few options for holding those agents accountable.
“I just got to live with the experience that they put me through with no remedy, no resolution, no answer for anything that happened to me, and I get no justice,” Retes said, speaking at a news conference. “Everyone that’s going through this currently gets no justice.”
Wiener told me that the masks and casual aggression are “designed to create an atmosphere of fear and terror, and it is and it’s having that effect,” and that without state pushback, it will only get worse.
“If California can’t stand up to Trump, then who can?” he asked Tuesday.
Good’s wife describes her as being “made of sunshine” and standing up for her immigrant neighbors when she was shot, with her dog in the back seat and her glove box full of stuffed animals for her 6-year-old son. But you wouldn’t know that from the response of federal leaders, who quickly labeled her a “domestic terrorist” and dismissed the killing as self-defense — unworthy of even a robust investigation.
“Every congressional democrat and every democrat who’s running for president should be asked a simple question: Do you think this officer was wrong in defending his life against a deranged leftist who tried to run him over?” Vice President JD Vance wrote on social media one day after Good was killed.
So much for law enforcement accountability.
While Good’s death is filling headlines, there have been dozens of other instances where immigration officers’ use of force has been questionable. The Trace, an independent news source that covers gun violence, found that since the federal crackdown began, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have opened fire 16 times, held people at gunpoint an additional 15 times, killed four people and injured seven.
One of those deaths was in Northridge, where Keith Porter Jr. was shot and killed by an off-duty ICE agent a few weeks ago, and his family is rightfully calling for an investigation.
That’s just the gun violence. Lots of other concerning behavior has been documented as well.
A 21-year-old protester was left with a fractured skull and blind in one eye last week in Southern California after an officer from the Department of Homeland Security fired a nonlethal round at close range toward his head. Most officers are taught, and even forbidden by policy, to fire such munitions at people’s heads for precisely this reason — they can be dangerous and even fatal if used incorrectly.
Across California, and the nation, citizens and noncitizens alike have reported being beaten and harassed, having guns pointed at them without provocation and being detained without basic rights for days.
In Brooklyn Park, Minn., students protesting the immigration enforcement operation walked out of school as students elsewhere have done this week.
The answer to police overreach in Floyd’s case was a reckoning in law enforcement that it needed to do better to build trust in the communities it was policing. Along with that came a nationwide push, especially in California, for reforms that would move local and state policing closer to that ideal.
The answer five years later in Good’s case — from our president, our vice president, our head of Homeland Security and others — has been to double down on impunity with the false claim that dissent is radical, and likely even a crime. And don’t fool yourself — this is exactly how President Trump sees it, as laid out in his recent executive order that labeled street-level protests as “antifa” and designated that nebulous anti-fascist movement as an organized terrorist group. He’s also set up National Guard units in every state to deal with “civil disturbances.”
So Vance is actually right — under Trump law, which is seemingly being enforced although not truly law, someone like Good could be dubbed a terrorist.
The situation has become so dire that this week six federal prosecutors resigned after the Justice Department pushed not to investigate Good’s shooting, but instead investigate Good — a further bid to bolster the egregious terrorist claim.
In the aftermath of Good’s killing, many of us feel the fear that no one is safe, an increasingly unsubtle pressure to self-censure dissent. Is it worth it to protest? Maybe for our safety and the safety of those we love, we should stay home. We just don’t know what federal authorities will do, what will happen if we speak out.
That’s the thinking that authoritarians seek to instill in the populace as they consolidate power. Just duck and cover, and maybe you won’t be the one to get hurt.
That’s why, successful or not, these new and proposed laws in California are fights the state must have for the safety of our residents, regardless of immigration status, and for the safety of democracy.
Because, truly, if California can’t stand up to Trump, who can?
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
ICE cannot be trusted to operate within constitutional boundaries and is increasingly acting as a rogue federal police force operating without proper accountability or restraint[1]. The fatal shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis and the detention of George Retes, a U.S. citizen and Army veteran, exemplify patterns of constitutional violations by federal immigration agents[1]. These incidents demonstrate that federal agents are engaging in excessive force, unlawful detention, denial of due process, and other abuses while operating with relative impunity[1].
California has a responsibility to use all available tools to protect residents and set an example for other states by enacting protective legislation[1]. Senate Bill 747, the No Kings Act, would close a critical legal loophole by allowing California residents to sue federal agents for constitutional violations such as excessive force and unlawful searches, similar to existing protections against state and local officers[1]. The No Secret Police Act, which bans masks on law enforcement officers, addresses how federal agents use anonymity to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation within communities[1].
Additional legislative measures are necessary to prevent complicity and maintain public trust in local institutions. A measure would prohibit state and local police officers from moonlighting for federal immigration enforcement, preventing erosion of community trust in local law enforcement when officers participate in federal immigration operations[1]. Senator Susan Rubio’s Keep Courts Safe from ICE Act would allow remote court appearances to protect immigrant families and witnesses from intimidation during legal proceedings[1].
Federal leadership has responded to legitimate concerns about accountability with dismissal and escalation rather than reform. Vice President JD Vance labeled Renee Good a “deranged leftist” and characterized the shooting as justified self-defense, while federal prosecutors were allegedly directed to investigate Good herself rather than the agent’s actions[1]. This response mirrors authoritarian tactics designed to instill fear and discourage democratic participation and dissent[1].
Different views on the topic
Federal officials contend that ICE agents act in self-defense during enforcement operations. The Department of Homeland Security characterized the shooting of Renee Good as a justified response, with Secretary Kristi Noem stating that Good attempted to use her vehicle as a weapon against an immigration officer[1]. Similarly, DHS disputed claims regarding George Retes’ detention, stating that he impeded their operation, contradicting his account that he did not resist or obstruct agents[1].
Law enforcement representatives, while not opposed to accountability measures in principle, have raised legitimate concerns about unintended consequences for state and local police officers. David Mastagni, speaking on behalf of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, expressed worry that Senate Bill 747 could inadvertently weaken protections for California’s state and local law enforcement employees[1]. This suggests that expanding federal liability frameworks may require careful drafting to avoid unintended impacts on officers serving California communities.
Some Republican lawmakers have demonstrated willingness to support reasonable oversight of immigration enforcement rather than opposing enforcement operations entirely. Senator Lisa Murkowski called footage of the Minnesota shooting “deeply disturbing” and advocated for policy changes to ensure ICE agents work “safely — and with empathy and respect for human life,”[2] while House and Senate appropriators from both parties agreed to new limits on the Trump administration’s ability to redirect DHS funding away from congressional intent[2]. This suggests bipartisan interest in ensuring lawful operations rather than curtailing enforcement capacity.
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
Taped Jan 8, 2026, a year after the Eaton Fire, this episode features Ondi Timoner. After losing her home, she began documenting the displacement and financial struggles of her neighbors, joining My Tribe Rise to help Altadena rebuild and recover.
Attorney Frank Carson defended the accused for decades. Framed for murder and later acquitted, a star witness admitted he lied. Stanislaus County paid $22.5M to settle his estate’s lawsuit.
In this specially released bonus episode, Madison McGhee and Jami Rice share some extremely opinionated opinions about everything from the Menendez Brothers to Jax Taylor. And just so you know, they are absolutely, one hundred percent right about everything.
