mask

SUPERMODEL Kendall Jenner gives a brand a leg up in an ad campaign — for a beauty mask.

She posed with her limb in the air for Therabody’s LED TheraFace Mask Glo, which is said to reduce the signs of ageing.

Kendall said: “I’ve been using Therabody products for years, and I love anything that can help me feel and look my best. I started with the Theragun Mini and have used a number of their products.

“I was excited when the brand asked me to try the new LED mask. I’m always open to trying new products and treatments that are recommended to me by professionals.

“I absolutely love learning, especially about any superficial or natural anti-aging tricks. I’m a lot more focused on consistency and being gentle with my skin.”

Earlier in the year, the telly favourite wore a zip-up top and cycling shorts as she modelled for activewear brand Adanola.

JENNER-ATING BUZZ

Kendall and Kylie Jenner put on a stunning display at Paris Fashion Week

Kendall also has deals with fashion house FWRD, where one of her dresses, costs £2,618.

The fashion icon is one of the most in-demand models in the world, and she recently insisted she’s got no plans to stop anytime soon.

But, speaking to French Vogue, Kendall confessed she was thinking about starting a family one day.

“I dream, above all, of longevity. Even when I’m older, I hope people will still think of me,” she said.

“I’d like to stay in the limelight as the years go by… I would love to have a family, become a mother and have children.”

In response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration raids that have roiled Southern California, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday signed a package of bills aimed at protecting immigrants in schools, hospitals and other areas targeted by federal agents.

Speaking at Miguel Contreras Learning Complex in Los Angeles, Newsom said President Trump had turned the country into a “dystopian sci-fi movie” with scenes of masked agents hustling immigrants without legal status into unmarked cars.

“We’re not North Korea,” Newsom said.

Newsom framed the pieces of legislation as pushback against what he called the “secret police” of Trump and Stephen Miller, the White House advisor who has driven the second Trump administration’s surge of immigration enforcement in Democrat-led cities.

SB 98, authored by Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Alhambra), will require school administrators to notify families and students if federal agents conduct immigration operations on a K-12 or college campus.

Assembly Bill 49, drafted by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates), will bar immigration agents from nonpublic areas of a school without a judicial warrant or court order. It will also prohibit school districts from providing information about pupils, their families, teachers and school employees to immigration authorities without a warrant.

Sen. Jesse Arreguín’s (D-Berkeley) Senate Bill 81 will prohibit healthcare officials from disclosing a patient’s immigration status or birthplace — or giving access to nonpublic spaces in hospitals and clinics — to immigration authorities without a search warrant or court order.

Senate Bill 627 by Sens. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley) targets masked federal immigration officers who began detaining migrants at Home Depots and car washes in California earlier this year.

Wiener has said the presence of anonymous, masked officers marks a turn toward authoritarianism and erodes trust between law enforcement and citizens. The law would apply to local and federal officers, but for reasons that Weiner hasn’t publicly explained, it would exempt state police such as California Highway Patrol officers.

Trump’s immigration leaders argue that masks are necessary to protect the identities and safety of immigration officers. The Department of Homeland Security on Monday called on Newsom to veto Wiener’s legislation, which will almost certainly be challenged by the federal government.

“Sen. Scott Wiener’s legislation banning our federal law enforcement from wearing masks and his rhetoric comparing them to ‘secret police’ — likening them to the gestapo — is despicable,” said DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

The package of bills has already caused friction between state and federal officials. Hours before signing the bills, Newsom’s office wrote on X that “Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today. You’re welcome, America.”

Bill Essayli, the acting U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, fired back on X accusing the governor of threatening Noem.

“We have zero tolerance for direct or implicit threats against government officials,” Essayli wrote in response, adding he’d requested a “full threat assessment” by the U.S. Secret Service.

The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution dictates that federal law takes precedence over state law, leading some legal experts to question whether California could enforce legislation aimed at federal immigration officials.

Essayli noted in another statement on X that California has no jurisdiction over the federal government and he’s directed federal agencies not to change their operations.

“If Newsom wants to regulate our agents, he must go through Congress,” he wrote.

California has failed to block federal officers from arresting immigrants based on their appearance, language and location. An appellate court paused the raids, which California officials alleged were clear examples of racial profiling, but the U.S. Supreme Court overrode the decision and allowed the detentions to resume.

During the news conference on Saturday, Newsom pointed to an arrest made last month when immigration officers appeared in Little Tokyo while the governor was announcing a campaign for new congressional districts. Masked agents showed up to intimidate people who attended the event, Newsom said, but they also arrested an undocumented man who happened to be delivering strawberries nearby.

“That’s Trump’s America,” Newsom said.

Other states are also looking at similar measures to unmask federal agents. Connecticut on Tuesday banned law enforcement officers from wearing masks inside state courthouses unless medically necessary, according to news reports.

Newsom on Saturday also signed Senate Bill 805, a measure by Pérez that targets immigration officers who are in plainclothes but don’t identify themselves.

The law requires law enforcement officers in plainclothes to display their agency, as well as either a badge number or name, with some exemptions.

“Ensuring that officers are clearly identified, while providing sensible exceptions, helps protect both the public and law enforcement personnel,” said Jason P. Houser, a former DHS official who supported the bills signed by Newsom.

The California Legislature on Thursday passed a pair of bills to prohibit on-duty law enforcement officers, including federal immigration agents, from masking their faces and to require them to identify themselves.

Senate Bill 627, written by Sens. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley), includes exceptions for SWAT teams and others. The measure was introduced after the Trump administration ordered immigration raids throughout the Los Angeles area earlier this year.

Federal officers in army-green neck gaiters or other face coverings have jumped out of vans and cars to detain individuals across California this summer as part of President Trump’s mass deportation program, prompting a wave of criticism from Democratic leaders.

Representatives for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security defend the face coverings, arguing that identifying officers subjects to them to retaliation and violence.

If supported by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the law would apply to local and federal officers, but not state officers such as California Highway Patrol officers. Wiener, when asked about that exemption on the Senate floor, declined to elaborate.

Leaders in Los Angeles County are exploring a similar measure to ban masks despite some legal experts’ view that the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution dictates that federal law takes precedence over state law.

The bill’s backers argue that permitting officers to disguise themselves creates scenarios where impostors may stop and detain migrants, which undermines public trust and ultimately hinders legitimate law enforcement operations.

“The idea that in California we would have law enforcement officers running around with ski masks is terrifying,” Wiener said in a brief interview. “It destroys confidence in law enforcement.”

Wiener’s bill allows exceptions for masks, including for undercover officers. Medical coverings are also allowed. .

Senate Bill 805, a measure by Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Alhambra) that targets immigration officers who are in plainclothes but don’t identify themselves, also passed the state Legislature on Thursday.

Her bill requires law enforcement officers in plain clothes to display their agency, as well as either a badge number or name, with some exemptions.

Beauty Pie’s in-demand LED face mask is finally back in stock after selling out three times, and shoppers have praised it for softening wrinkles, plumping and evening out skin tone

LED mask fans will be pleased to hear that Beauty Pie’s professional-grade C-Wave LED Treatment Mask is finally back in stock after selling out three times.

These high-tech beauty gadgets have been rising in popularity over the past few years, with major celebs like Victoria Beckham and Kate Hudson using them as part of their skincare routines.

And they’re not just a fad; they’re scientifically supported pieces of tech that can help reduce inflammation, stimulate collagen production, and combat fine lines by using light therapy to penetrate deep into your skin.

So why is the Beauty Pie mask so in demand? Well, it’s a clinically proven skincare device that tackles everything from fine lines to redness to dullness. Using the power of dual-wavelength tech, it boosts collagen, firms up skin, fades pigmentation, and gives you that fresh, even-toned glow.

The best part? It delivers pro-level results at a fraction of the price of luxury LED masks. If you’re a Beauty Pie member already, you can nab it for £120, and if you’re not a member, the mask is priced at £200.

READ MORE: ‘Remington’s new 2-in-1 styler gave me long-lasting smoothness for £350 less than a Dyson’

READ MORE: River Island’s Chanel-inspired cardigan in trending colour of the season is set to fly off shelves

Beauty Pie shoppers have been raving about this LED mask for plumping the skin, reducing the appearance of wrinkles and balancing out skin tone.

One happy reviewer wrote: “I am pleased to say I have seen results, lots of comments on how I am looking younger! Which at 61 I will take. I can see a softening of lines and wrinkles and look a little plumper. I use it every morning as soon as the first snooze button has been pressed. I recommend this LED Mask, but like anything you need to be consistent. Its a great price too.”

A second added: “I love this mask. I work within the Beauty industry and have seen lots of LED masks including medical grade ones. I have combination skin and want to prevent early aging. This mask is the best value for money and I really like how it fits directly to the face. It’s great that you can have the eye guards off or on. The adjustable strap is really helpful too.

I have been using this daily since March. The instant result I saw was my skin was smoother. After that it was more radiant.”

Not all were as impressed, however, with a few noting that the eye protectors sit awkwardly on the face. A shopper said: “Too early to tell tbh – I have high hopes. Negatives are that the eye protectors are very uncomfortable – I have tried wearing them back to front to give some eye protection with less discomfort. That seems to work ok.”

For alternative LED masks, our beauty team tested and reviewed a selection of the very best masks to shop in 2025. Among the list, the standout masks to try included the Shark CryoGlow LED Anti-Ageing and Blemish Repair Mask, priced at £299.99, and the BeautyPro Photon LED Light Therapy Facial Mask, priced at £195.

The United States economy has added 147,000 jobs in June, beating analyst expectations, as the labour market remains stable despite economic uncertainty driven by President Donald Trump’s policies.

The Department of Labor released the numbers on Thursday. The data, which was released a day early because the Independence Day holiday falls on Friday, showed the unemployment rate ticked down from May by 0.1 percentage points to 4.1 percent. The average workweek was shorter last month, suggesting businesses were probably reducing hours amid rising economic headwinds.

Government jobs at the state and local levels led the gains, adding 73,000 positions in June. State governments added 47,000 jobs, led by 40,000 in education. Local government jobs grew by 23,000. A downward turn continues at the federal level with a loss of 7,000 jobs, which accounts for 69,000 jobs lost since January.

Gains in government jobs were followed by the healthcare sector, which added 39,000 jobs. Social assistance employment increased by 19,000 jobs.

“On net, it was a good report,’’ Sarah House, senior economist with Wells Fargo, told The Associated Press news agency.

“But when you dig underneath the surface, it was another jobs report that didn’t look quite as good as first meets the eye.’’

Looming uncertainty driven by Trump’s tariffs and immigration policies led to little change across much of the private sector in terms of hiring, including in construction, mining, oil and gas extraction, wholesale and retail trade, transportation, financial services, professional and business services, and leisure and hospitality.

Trump’s constant changes in tariffs policy, announcing and suspending import taxes and then coming up with new ones, has left businesses bewildered and hesitant to make decisions about hiring and investment.

Layoffs have started, but they are still relatively low. The Labor Department’s weekly jobless claims report, which also came out on Thursday said claims fell by 4,000 to 233,000. The ADP private payroll report out on Wednesday showed a net loss of 33,000 jobs.

“Though layoffs continue to be rare, a hesitancy to hire and a reluctance to replace departing workers led to job losses last month,” said Nela Richardson, chief economist at ADP.

Thursday’s jobs report also showed average hourly wages came in cooler than forecasters expected, rising 0.2 percent from May and 3.7 percent from a year earlier.

The year-over-year number is inching closer to the 3.5 percent year-over-year number considered consistent with the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent inflation target.

“For the FOURTH month in a row, jobs numbers have beat market expectations with nearly 150,000 good jobs created in June,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement.

“The economy is booming again and it will only get better when the One, Big, Beautiful Bill is passed and implemented,” she said, referring to Republican legislation to cut taxes, food assistance and the Medicaid health insurance programme for low-income Americans.

Growth slowdown

Despite the White House’s characterisation, the US job market has cooled significantly in the past year. This year, employers have added an average of 130,000 jobs per month, down from an average of 186,000 in 2024. From 2021 to 2023, the US economy added an average of 400,000 jobs per month as it made up for jobs shed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Other data show the US economy contracting. Last week, a report from the Department of Commerce found the US economy shrank by 0.5 percent in the first quarter.

The US labour force – the count of those working and looking for work – fell by 130,000 last month after a drop of 625,000 in May. Economists expected Trump’s immigration deportations – and the fear of them – to push foreign workers out of the labour force.

The Labor Department said the number of workers who believe no jobs are available for them rose by 256,000 last month to 637,000.

Wells Fargo expected monthly job growth to fall below 100,000 in the second half of the year. “We’re bracing for a much lower pace of job growth,” House said. ”There’s still a lot of policy uncertainty.”

Following a surge in arrests by armed, masked federal immigration agents in unmarked cars, some California Democrats are backing a new bill in Congress that would bar officials from covering their faces while conducting raids.

The No Masks for ICE Act, introduced by Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-New York) and co-sponsored by more than a dozen Democrats, would make it illegal for federal agents to cover their faces while conducting immigration enforcement unless the masks were required for their safety or health.

The bill would also require agents to clearly display their name and agency affiliation on their clothes during arrests and enforcement operations.

Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Burbank), who is co-sponsoring the bill, said Tuesday that the legislation would create the same level of accountability for federal agents as for uniformed police in California, who have been required by law for more than three decades to have their name or badge number visible.

“When agents are masked and anonymous, you cannot have accountability,” Friedman said. “That’s not how democracy works. That’s not how our country works.”

The bill would direct the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to set up discipline procedures for officers who did not comply and report annually on those numbers to Congress.

A DHS spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The department has previously warned of a spike in threats and harassment against immigration agents.

The mask bill has no Republican co-sponsors, meaning its chances of getting a hearing in the GOP-controlled House are slim.

“I would think that there’s Republicans out there who are probably hearing the same thing that I’m hearing from my constituents: ‘I don’t like the idea of people jumping out of a truck, carrying very large guns with masks over their faces, and I have no idea who they are,’” Friedman said.

Friedman said she hoped that Republicans concerned about governmental overreach and the so-called “deep state” — the idea that there is a secretive, coordinated network inside the government — would support the bill too.

The proposal comes after weeks of immigration raids in Southern California conducted by masked federal agents dressed in street clothes or camouflage fatigues, driving unmarked vehicles and not displaying their names, badge numbers or agency affiliations. Social media sites have been flooded with videos of agents violently detaining people, including dragging a taco stand vendor by her arm and tossing smoke bombs into a crowd of onlookers.

The raids have coincided with an increase in people impersonating federal immigration agents. Last week, police said they arrested a Huntington Park man driving a Dodge Durango SUV equipped with red-and-blue lights and posing as a Border Patrol agent.

In Raleigh, N.C., a 37-year-old man was charged with rape, kidnapping and impersonating a law enforcement officer after police said he broke into a Motel 6, told a woman that he was an immigration officer and that he would have her deported if she didn’t have sex with him.

And in Houston, police arrested a man who they say blocked another driver’s car, pretended to be an ICE agent, conducted a fake traffic stop and stole the man’s identification and money.

Burbank Mayor Nikki Perez said Tuesday that city officials have received questions from residents like, “How can I know if the masked man detaining me is ICE or a kidnapper? And who can protect me if a man with a gun refuses to identify himself?”

Those issues came to a “boiling point” last weekend, Perez said, when a man confronted a woman at the Mystic Museum in Burbank, asked to see her documents and tried to “act as a federal immigration agent.” Staff and patrons stepped in to help, Perez said, but the incident left behind a “newfound sense of fear, an uncertainty.”

“Why is it that we hold our local law enforcement, who put their lives on the line every day, to a much higher standard than federal immigration officers?” Perez said.

The bill in the House follows a similar bill introduced in Sacramento last month by state Sen. Scott Wiener that would bar immigration agents from wearing masks, although it’s unclear whether states can legally dictate the conduct or uniforms of federal agents.

On Tuesday, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander was arrested by several masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at a courthouse in Manhattan as he attempted to steer an individual past immigration authorities. That same day, masked agents outside a Walmart in Pico Rivera detained two individuals — one a target of immigration enforcement, the other a U.S. citizen who tried to intervene.

These two scenes from opposite sides of the country illustrate what has become a more common problem: federal agents wearing masks to avoid recognition. On Thursday, masked individuals said to be affiliated with the Department of Homeland Security descended on a Home Depot in Hollywood and on Dodger Stadium.

Masking is not good law enforcement practice. It may contradict Homeland Security regulations, while potentially providing cover for some officers to violate constitutional and civil rights. It undermines agents’ authority and endangers public safety as well.

The federal government has no specific policy banning immigration agents from wearing masks. But the fact that such practice is not illegal does not make it acceptable. Department of Homeland Security regulations require immigration officers to identify themselves during an arrest or, in cases of a warrantless arrest, provide a statement explaining how they identified themselves. The use of masks seems to violate the intent of these directives for identification.

ICE agents in masks are becoming disturbingly routine. There were ICE agents in masks at the Los Angeles immigration protests recently, just as there have been at enforcement actions in Minneapolis, Boston, Phoenix and across the country. In March a video of Rumeysa Ozturk, a doctoral student at Tufts University, being detained by masked officers on the street went viral.

There seems to be no uniformity in the face coverings immigration agents wear, which has included ski masks, surgical masks, balaclavas and sunglasses. Such inconsistency across a federal workforce flies in the face of sound policing. Masked agents can confuse both bystanders and ICE targets, which risks people interfering with enforcement actions that look more like kidnappings. The International Assn. of Chiefs of Police has warned that the public “may be intimidated or fearful of officers wearing a face covering, which may heighten their defensive reactions.”

Todd Lyons, acting director of ICE, said earlier this month that immigration agents wear masks to protect themselves. “I’m sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks,” he said, “but I’m not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line, their family on the line, because people don’t like what immigration enforcement is.”

Yet law enforcement jobs come with an assumption of exactly that risk. Consider that the overwhelming majority of police officers, sheriffs and FBI agents fulfill their duties without concealing their faces. Correction officers who deal with prisoners do not wear masks, nor do judges who administer our laws. Because these public employees have such tremendous power, their roles require full transparency.

Besides, ICE agents are increasingly targeting noncriminals, which mitigates the argument that agents require masks for safety. According to the research site Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, about 44% of people in ICE detention as of June 1 have no criminal record.

When ICE agents wear masks, there can be unintended consequences. Lately, there has been a spike in people impersonating agents and engaging in harassment, assault and violence. In April, a Florida woman wore a mask as she posed as an ICE agent and attempted to kidnap her ex-boyfriend’s wife.

Ironically, the Trump administration has a double standard around the idea of people wearing masks. It has demanded that universities bar students from wearing masks during protests. In the aftermath of the Los Angeles immigration protests, the president posted on social media, “From now on, MASKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to be worn at protests.” Shouldn’t that principle be applied to both sides?

True, it makes sense for immigration agents to use face coverings when they are making arrests of a high-profile target or conducting an undercover operation. However, masking should be the exception, not the norm. If ICE agents are conducting their duties anonymously, they open the door to potential civil rights and due process violations. The practice gives impunity to agents to make unlawful arrests, without the possibility of public accountability.

Masking can also be seen as a show of intimidation by immigration agents — whether their target is an undocumented migrant or an American citizen, like Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who was arrested outside a New Jersey detention facility in May. Masked ICE agents give the impression of being a secret police force, which is not good for our democracy.

Last week, two Democratic lawmakers in California introduced a bill that would bar local, state and federal law enforcement officers in California from wearing masks on duty (with certain exceptions). Although this is a step in the right direction, it remains unclear whether such a state measure could be applied to federal agents. Congress should ban the use of masks by immigration agents.

ICE officers should not be allowed to conceal their faces. The public’s need for accountability strongly outweighs any rationale for agents’ anonymity.

Raul A. Reyes is an immigration attorney and contributor to NBC Latino and CNN Opinion. X: @RaulAReyes; Instagram: @raulareyes1

I’ve watched two disturbing videos in the past day of federal authorities acting with frightening disregard for decency and democracy as they arrest immigrants.

At least, I think they are federal authorities. But these days, who knows?

The alleged officers detaining hundreds if not thousands of people each day in California and across the country are often masked. They sometimes refuse to answer questions, including which agency they represent. They threaten force — and even use it to make arrests of bystanders — when they are challenged.

In the first video I watched, a man in an unmarked car detains another man sitting on a bus bench in Pasadena. The man presumed to be a federal agent has on a vest that simply says “Police” and a cheap black ski mask that covers every bit of his face — the kind that looks like it was purchased on Amazon and that we have previously most associated with criminals such as robbers and rapists. A few of his colleagues are in the background, some also seemingly masked.

If these men approached me or one of my kids dressed like that, I would run. I would fight. I would certainly not take his word that he was “police” and had the right to force me into his car.

In the second video, another presumed federal agent jumps out of his unmarked vehicle and draws his weapon on a civilian attempting to take a photo of the license plate.

Yes — he points his gun at a civilian who is not threatening him or committing a crime. Folks, maybe you consider it a bad idea to try to photograph what may or may not be a legitimate police operation, but it is not illegal. This alleged officer appears to have simply not liked what was happening, and threatened to shoot the person upsetting him. The man taking the photo ran away, but what would have happened had he not?

These actions by alleged authorities are examples of impunity, and it is what happens when accountability is lost.

“It’s terrifying to be assaulted by people that you can’t be sure are law enforcement and who seem to be hiding their identity from you,” David Sklansky told me. He’s a law professor at Stanford and an expert on policing. He said there are times when secrecy by authorities can be justified, but it should be the exception, not the rule.

“The seizure of people by agents of the state who don’t identify themselves as agents of the state is a tool that has a long and ugly history of being used by authoritarian regimes,” he said.

ICE has claimed that its officers have a need and right to remain anonymous because threats and attacks against them have dramatically increased. The agency has been publicizing that its staff has seen a 413% increase in assaults against them, and that they and their families have been doxxed.

Speaking on the New York Times podcast “The Daily,” President Trump’s top border policy advisor, Tom Homan, said that his officers are doing the best they can under difficult circumstances.

“It’s not about intimidation,” Homan said. “ICE officers are wearing masks because they’ve been doxxed by the thousands. Their families have been doxxed. ICE officers’ pictures have shown up on trees and telephone poles. Death threats are sky-high. I know because I’ve been doxxed 1,000 times myself.”

You know what? I believe ICE officers are getting doxxed and threatened.

Any violent attack on law enforcement should be condemned.

And while we are at it, I don’t have any issue with deporting dangerous criminals. For today, I’m leaving aside the issue of whether Trump’s aggressive drive to deport people is good or bad. This isn’t about what is happening with these deportations, but about how authorities are exercising their power.

Threatening a law enforcement official is a crime. Doxxing is a crime. These agencies have the resources to track down, arrest and prosecute anyone who breaks those laws. They should absolutely do that.

Instead, federal authorities are hiding, apparently too frightened of online provocateurs and in-person hecklers to do their duty in plain sight.

But judges are being doxxed and don’t wear masks. Journalists are being doxxed and don’t wear masks. Politicians are being doxxed — and even killed — and are still doing their jobs out in the open. Which raises the question: Is it really not about intimidation?

“Quite frankly, I’ve had lots of guns pointed at me. I’ve had lots of threats against my life,” Lt. Diane Goldstein told me. “I never once wore a mask because I was afraid.”

Goldstein is the executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, a nonprofit composed of justice system authorities who advocate for better policies. She was also the first female lieutenant in the Redondo Beach Police Department, where she worked for more than 20 years, including on undercover assignments.

She points out that accountability demands some way to attach actions to individuals. Take that officer who pulled the gun on the license plate photographer.

“If one of my officers would have done that, I would have put him on an administrative leave, taken his gun away and initiated an internal affairs investigation,” she said. “There is no constitutional reason for him to jump out of a car and point a gun in that type of aggressive fashion at an ordinary citizen.”

However, we likely will never get to ask that officer what he was thinking — if he saw a threat that justified lethal force — because there is no easy way of identifying him. Forget who he is personally, we don’t even know what agency he is from.

“You have no idea if it’s the FBI, if it’s the DEA, if it’s ICE, if it’s CBP,” said Goldstein, rattling off the acronyms for various federal authorities. “There is no accountability and transparency.”

Sklansky points out that accountability doesn’t necessarily require a name or face. Although there is no law that requires it, federal authorities could simply put their badge number and agency name someplace visible. Voila! Accountability and safety for officers.

“Lots of law enforcement works this way,” he said.

Failing to provide any kind of trustworthy identification causes its own dangers, both Sklansky and Goldstein told me. People are required by law not to interfere with law enforcement doing their duty. But if you don’t know it’s law enforcement and fear you are witnessing an attack or are the victim of one, the situation is different.

Goldstein said that she worries about violence if bystanders think they are in the midst of a crime, or that local law enforcement will be called to intervene in what appears to be a kidnapping or assault.

“People can’t tell if they’re crooks or they’re law enforcement,” Goldstein said of officers who mask or hide their affiliation.

“Someone’s going to get hurt. A citizen is going to get hurt, a local cop is going to get hurt or a federal agent is going to get hurt. Their tactics are dangerous and putting the community in danger,” she said.

That fear that people are posing as law enforcement is real. Last week, a Minnesota legislator and her husband were killed by a gunman posing as a police officer. That same gunman earlier also went to the home of another politician and his wife and shot them as well, though they are expected to survive — their 28-year-old daughter called 911 after being shielded from the bullets by her mom.

The shooter banged on the front door of his victims, demanding to be let inside because he was law enforcement. Since then, articles are popping up, pointing out that people have a right to ask questions before just assuming that guy with the badge is really a cop.

After that attack, St. Cloud Police Chief Jeff Oxton sought to quell fears of fake cops roaming the streets by putting out a statement that stressed that it is “important that our public has confidence in the identification of our police officers.”

Of course it is important. In fact, it’s vital to democracy and public safety. The might of law derives from our trust in those empowered to enforce it, our willingness to respect their authority because it comes with both boundaries and responsibilities. The death of George Floyd and the protests that followed show just how tenuous, and how vital, that trust is.

An anonymous man in a ski mask does not inspire that trust, and does not deserve it.

A president who built his reputation as a real estate mogul and TV personality, not through political office or military service. A cultural influencer and entrepreneur best known as the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, he also leads companies like Neuralink and The Boring Company, both embroiled in a feud. An intriguing moment in politics, one that could steer the direction of public discourse and holds potential for both factionalism and authoritarian tendencies. Two political outsiders beefing in the political space. Perhaps, if both were real politicians, the first thing to say would be that in politics there are no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, only permanent interests. Since both are businessmen, perhaps the philosophy of supply and demand should take the lead.

One key area of tension is their vision for power and influence. Trump has traditionally sought loyalty and absolute control over his political base. Musk, on the other hand, champions a decentralized, free speech-centric internet and promotes what he calls “rational centrism.” Their feud exposes a broader struggle over who gets to define the conservative movement in the digital age. Is it career politicians like Trump or tech disruptors like Musk?

As the feud between Elon Musk and Donald Trump escalates, it signals a seismic shift in where power and influence now reside in America. Musk represents the rise of the tech oligarch—billionaires who command not only wealth but also control over critical digital infrastructure and artificial intelligence. In contrast, Trump embodies the traditional fusion of business interests and political power. This public clash reflects more than a personal rivalry; it marks a defining moment in history when unelected figures with vast digital reach are rivaling, and in some cases eclipsing, the authority of elected officials. At stake is the very foundation of American democracy.

The cultural impact is equally significant. In today’s fragmented media landscape, Musk owns and controls X (formerly Twitter), one of the most influential social media platforms. Trump, meanwhile, promotes his views through Truth Social, his own media venture. Their battles play out in real time across these platforms, often fueling misinformation, deepening tribal divides, and eroding a shared sense of truth. This dynamic contributes to a growing destabilization of democratic norms. The rise of personality-driven politics is not confined to the United States; it is a global trend, reshaping leadership and public discourse worldwide. As Musk and Trump dominate headlines, millions are drawn into a media spectacle that distracts from urgent challenges like climate change, economic inequality, healthcare reform, and global instability. In this new era of digital power, the question remains: who truly holds the reins of influence, and at what cost to democratic society?

Elon Musk’s companies play a pivotal role in the U.S. economy, particularly in the automotive, aerospace, and infrastructure sectors. Should President Donald Trump choose to launch a political or rhetorical campaign against Musk, it could prompt Republican policymakers to reassess their support for clean energy subsidies, government contracts, or regulatory leniency. At the same time, Musk’s significant influence over financial markets—including cryptocurrencies and tech stocks—means that any sustained public clash with Trump could spark market volatility, especially if investors anticipate political retaliation or regulatory changes.

Should this feud be prolonged, the two figures could have far-reaching implications for Silicon Valley and the broader culture of innovation. Elon Musk is widely regarded as a symbol of entrepreneurial ambition and visionary risk-taking. Should former President Trump cast him as a political adversary, it could politicize certain elements of the tech industry, potentially undermining bipartisan support for innovation-driven initiatives. On the other hand, such a clash might encourage other tech leaders to adopt more overt political positions, either aligning with Musk’s views or deliberately distancing themselves from his influence, thereby challenging the traditionally apolitical posture of the tech sector.

The cultural implications of such a feud could be profound. Elon Musk resonates with younger, tech-savvy audiences through memes, livestreams, and direct engagement on social media platforms. In contrast, Donald Trump appeals to an older demographic that emphasizes traditional values and nationalist rhetoric. A prolonged conflict between the two figures could highlight and deepen the generational and ideological divides in American society. As business and politics become increasingly performative and adversarial, the space for collaboration, empathy, and thoughtful public discourse may continue to shrink.

Ultimately, in a nation already grappling with deep polarization, media fragmentation, and widespread institutional mistrust, a public clash between Elon Musk and Donald Trump could intensify existing divisions. While such a feud may appear, at first glance, to be mere spectacle, its ripple effects could extend far beyond headlines, impacting politics, economics, culture, and technology. As highly influential figures, both Musk and Trump bear a responsibility that transcends their personal brands. Their actions and their conflicts resonate throughout American society, making the consequences of their feud not just personal, but profoundly national.

Los Angeles County prosecutors announced new charges Tuesday against people suspected of attacking the police during recent protests that rocked downtown L.A., including an incident in which a California Highway Patrol cruiser was set ablaze on the 101 Freeway.

Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman said 39-year-old Adam Palermo was charged with two counts of assault on a peace officer and two counts of using a destructive device in connection with the June 8 incident.

As he announced the charges, Hochman stood alongside a TV screen looping a video that allegedly shows Palermo dropping a flaming item onto the CHP vehicle during the first weekend of protests against the Trump administration’s immigration raids.

That Sunday — the day after President Trump deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles over Gov. Gavin Newsom’s objections — thousands of protesters took to downtown. A number of CHP vehicles and officers wound up parked underneath an overpass on the 101 after clearing protesters from the freeway late in the afternoon.

Palermo also allegedly threw a large rock at one of the CHP vehicles. Hochman displayed social media posts allegedly made by Palermo saying “of all the protests I’ve been involved in, which is well over a hundred now, I’m most proud of what I did today,” accompanied by images and videos of the CHP cars being damaged and burned.

“It was not a productive day. It was a day of destruction,” Hochman said.

Palermo will also face federal arson charges in relation to the same incident, according to U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, who joined Hochman for the news conference.

Hochman said his office has brought charges against 30 people in relation to the protests since they first erupted 10 days ago. Essayli said he’s brought about 20 cases, and both promised more prosecutions going forward.

In a separate alleged attack, Hochman said 23-year-old William Rubio threw fireworks at Los Angeles police officers responding to a dumpster that had been set on fire near First and Spring streets on June 8. When Rubio was arrested, police allegedly found 11 M-1000 fireworks in his backpack, which Hochman likened to a “quarter stick of dynamite.”

“These are lethal devices. Had any of these been thrown in a person’s direction, they could have killed or maimed that person,” Hochman said.

It was not immediately clear whether Rubio or Palermo had defense attorneys. Palermo is scheduled to be arraigned Tuesday afternoon, according to a district attorney’s office spokesperson. Records show Rubio will be arraigned downtown on July 1.

Charges were also filed against defendants accused of firing a laser pointer at a police helicopter, being in possession of a firearm when they were detained for a curfew violation and breaking into an Apple store downtown that was being overrun by “looters,” Hochman said.

Essayli announced one new case against a defendant who allegedly spit on a National Guard member and federal law enforcement officers during a confrontation outside a federal building.

“As our President said, ‘If you spit, we hit,’ and we will hit you with a felony,” Essayli said.

L.A.’s top federal prosecutor also went into more detail about charges filed last week against Alejandro Orellana, who was charged with conspiracy to commit civil disorder and aiding and abetting civil disorder for handing out protective face shields to protesters.

Essayli said the masks were meant to protect “violent agitators” from law enforcement crowd-control munitions, adding that a search of Orellana’s home turned up a a bag of rocks, metal BB gun pellets and a notebook of anti-police scribbling including a page that read “Blue Lives Matter. 187,” the California Penal Code section for murder.

Asked why providing defensive materials to demonstrators was a crime, Essayli scoffed at the idea that peaceful demonstrators would need protective equipment.

“He wasn’t handing masks out at the beach,” Essayli said. “He was handing them out in downtown L.A. to people who were dressed similarly to those committing violence. They were dressed in gear from top to bottom, they were covering their face, they were wearing backpacks. We’ve talked about what’s been in the backpacks. You’ve got fireworks. You’ve got rocks … There’s no legitimate reason why a peaceful protester needs a face shield.”

Orellana faces at least five years in federal prison if convicted.

Essayli also reiterated his promise to go after “organizers and funders” of what he termed “violence” at protests. He hinted that the person who paid for the masks Orellana distributed could also face criminal charges.

Although some of the recent protest cases brought by Essayli’s office have involved severe instances of violence against police — including cases where defendants are accused of hurling Molotov cocktails or concrete blocks at deputies and officers — others have left legal experts wondering if the devout Trump appointee is straining to criminalize protest against the administration’s policies.

Essayli maintained Tuesday that his office is only going after those responsible for causing unrest in recent days.

“These weren’t peaceful protesters,” he said of the people who received masks from Orellana. “They weren’t holding up signs expressing a political message. They were agitators.”

SACRAMENTO — In response to immigration raids by masked federal officers in Los Angeles and across the nation, two California lawmakers on Monday proposed a new state law to ban members of law enforcement from concealing their faces while on the job.

The bill would make it a misdemeanor for local, state and federal law enforcement officers to cover their faces with some exceptions, and also encourage them to wear a form of identification on their uniform.

“We’re really at risk of having, effectively, secret police in this country,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), co-author of the bill.

During a news conference in San Francisco announcing the legislation, Wiener criticized the Trump administration for targeting illegal immigrants without criminal records and alleged that current tactics allow ICE agents to make themselves appear to be local police in some cases. Under the proposal, law enforcement officials would be exempted from the mask ban if they serve on a SWAT team or if a mask is necessary for medical or health reasons, including to prevent smoke inhalation.

Recent immigration enforcement sweeps have left communities throughout California and the country frightened and unsure if federal officials are legitimate because of their shrouded faces and lack of identification, said Sen. Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley), co-author and chair of the Senate Public Safety Committee. He said the bill would provide transparency and discourage impersonators.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection agencies, called the proposal “despicable,” saying it posed a threat to law enforcement officers by identifying them and subjecting them to retaliation.

“We will prosecute those who dox ICE agents to the fullest extent of the law. The men and women of ICE put their lives on the line every day to arrest violent criminal illegal aliens to protect and defend the lives of American citizens,” the department said in a post on the social media site X. “Make no mistake, this type of rhetoric is contributing to the surge in assaults of ICE officers through their repeated vilification and demonization of ICE.”

Wiener, however, said members of law enforcement are public servants and people need to see their faces so they can be held accountable for their actions.

He likened ICE officials to Stormtroopers, fictional helmeted soldiers from the movie “Star Wars,” and said masking the faces and concealing the names of law enforcement officials shields them from public scrutiny and from the communities they are meant to serve.

“We don’t want to move towards that kind of model where law enforcement becomes almost like an occupying army, disconnected from the community, and that’s what it is when you start hiding their face, hiding the identity,” he said.

California law already bans wearing a mask or other disguise, including a fake mustache, wig or beard to hide your identity and evade law enforcement while committing a crime, but there are no current laws about what police can or cannot wear. It was unclear whether the proposal would affect undercover or plainclothes police officers, or if a state law could apply to federal police forces.

The proposal is being offered as an amendment to Senate Bill 627, a housing measure that would essentially be eviscerated.

The bill also includes an intent clause, which is not legally binding, that says the legislature would work to require all law enforcement within the state to display their name on their uniforms.

“Finding a balance between public transparency and trust, along with officer safety, is critical when we’re talking about creating state laws that change the rules for officers that are being placed into conflict situations,” Jason Salazar, president of the California Police Chief Assn., said in a statement. “We have been in touch with Senator Wiener, who reached out ahead of the introduction of this bill, and we will engage in discussions with him and his office to share our concerns so that we ensure the safety of law enforcement first responders is a top priority.”

Wiener said the new measure would make it clearer who is a police officer and who is not, which would be essential in the wake of the politically motivated killing of a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband, and the attempted killing of another politician and his wife. The suspect, Vance Boelter, is accused of knocking on the doors of the lawmakers in the middle of the night and announcing himself as a police officer to get them to open up, authorities said.

U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), wrote in an X post that the bill would endanger ICE agents.

“Do not forget — targeted attacks on ICE agents are up 413%. This is yet another shameless attempt to put them in harm’s way,” she said.