News of the World

[kyonides]

MIDDLE EAST WAR

Trump Trolls Iran With Post About 'Regime Change'

President Donald Trump asked on Sunday why there "wouldn't" be "regime change" in Iran if the country's government isn't able to "MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN."

Trump's comments came after multiple top administration officials said that regime change was not the U.S.'s goal in targeting Iran's three main nuclear facilities this weekend.

Why It Matters
Trump on Saturday evening announced what he described as a "very successful attack" against three Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

U.S. officials said the attacks caused severe damage, but questions remain about the full extent of the damage and how much of a setback it is for Iran's nuclear program.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the Trump administration for taking an offensive position in the conflict, which Israeli officials have strongly advocated for since Israel first ignited the war on June 13. The Israelis said the U.S. should strike Iran's nuclear facilities because Tehran was getting close to developing a nuclear weapon. Iran denies the charge, saying its nuclear program is for civilian purposes.

Trump's decision to launch the strike drew condemnation from Democrats and some Republicans and fueled concerns about a wider war in the Middle East. Several lawmakers also accused the president of breaking the law because he greenlit the strikes without congressional authorization.

Iran, meanwhile, vowed to retaliate, accusing the U.S. of crossing "a very big red line" with its decision to pummel the three nuclear sites with 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs.

What To Know

Trump mused about the possibility of regime change in Iran on his social media website, Truth Social, on Sunday evening.

"It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???" the president wrote. "MIGA!!!"

Hours earlier, Trump's vice president and defense secretary emphasized in public remarks that the administration was not looking for regime change in Iran.

"This mission was not and has not been about regime change," Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told reporters at the Pentagon on Sunday morning.

Vice President JD Vance told NBC News' Kristen Welker in a Meet the Press interview on Sunday that the U.S. was not at war with Iran but rather with its nuclear program.

Tehran, meanwhile, responded to the U.S.'s strikes with a flurry of missiles launched at Israel that injured scores of people and destroyed buildings in Tel Aviv.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also told French President Emmanuel Macron that the country would retaliate, saying, "The U.S. has attacked us; what would you do in such a situation? Naturally, they must receive a response to their aggression."

Obama's Defense Sec. Defends Iran Strikes: 'Didn't Have Any Alternative'

Leon Panetta, former Democratic President Barack Obama's defense secretary, defended President Donald Trump's administration's Iran strikes on Sunday, telling CNN's Wolf Blitzer that the U.S. "didn't have any alternative."

Newsweek reached out to the White House via email on Sunday for comment.

Why It Matters
Trump on Saturday evening announced what he described as a "very successful attack" against three Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.

The president's decision came after Israel and Iran have exchanged consistent strikes since June 13. Israel had urged the U.S. to target Iran's nuclear facilities, saying that Tehran was moving close to creating a nuclear weapon. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes—not for weapons.

Panetta's current stance notably contrasts with his 2020 criticism of Trump's targeted killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, when he warned that such actions brought the U.S. "closer to war with Iran than we've been in the last 40 years."

The former director of the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) defense provides crucial bipartisan political cover for Trump's decision, demonstrating rare cross-party agreement on Iran policy despite ongoing criticism from some Democrats and some Republicans about the lack of congressional approval.

What To Know
The Pentagon revealed details of "Operation Midnight Hammer," which involved seven B-2 stealth bombers that targeted the three Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday night.

The strikes mark America's direct entry into the escalating Israel-Iran conflict and represent the most significant U.S. military action against Iran's nuclear program in decades. "Operation Midnight Hammer" deployed the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) for the first time operationally, specifically designed to destroy heavily fortified underground facilities like Iran's Fordow enrichment site.

Putin Ally Says Countries Now Ready to Supply Iran With Nuclear Weapons

Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of the Security Council of Russia, said Sunday that President Donald Trump "has pushed the US into another war" and that countries are "ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads."

Medvedev made the remarks on Telegram, outlining his views on what the Trump administration's strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities would lead to moving forward.

"The enrichment of nuclear material—and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons—will continue," Medvedev, a top ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, wrote in his Telegram post. "A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads."

Newsweek reached out to the State Department for comment on Sunday morning.

Why It Matters

The Russian official's comment came after the U.S. carried out attacks targeting three nuclear sites across the Persian Gulf nation—at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Trump described the operation as a "very successful attack" and has now called for "peace," while Iran has said it will retaliate.

Trump's decision came after Israel and Iran have exchanged consistent strikes since June 13. Israel had urged the U.S. to target Iran's nuclear facilities, saying that Tehran was moving close to creating a nuclear weapon. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for civilian, not military, purposes.

What To Know

Medvedev accused the U.S. of significantly escalating the conflict with its strikes. Since the outbreak of the current conflict, Russian officials have repeatedly raised concerns about escalation—issuing warnings about potential nuclear fallout.

The Russian official laid out the current situation after the U.S. strikes, writing on Telegram: "Israel is under attack, explosions are rocking the country, and people are panicking."

Arab World Reacts to U.S. Strikes on Iran

Arab countries, staunch U.S. allies among them, expressed strong concern over the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites as the United States joined Israel in attacking them.

Newsweek contacted the U.S. State Department for comment.

Why It Matters

The reaction of Arab states matters for relations with the United States and for the wider question of diplomacy in the Middle East at the time of its greatest upheaval in decades.

While Arab countries may seek to distance themselves from the attacks, however, this does not mean they would want to rupture the important security relationships that many of them have with the United States and President Donald Trump.

What To Know

Saudi Arabia, which was the first foreign destination for Trump in his second presidency, was among the first to criticize the U.S. strikes on three nuclear sites.

Saudi Arabia said it was following the developments with deep concern and reiterated the denunciation it had made over what it had called Israel's violation of Iran's sovereignty.

Israel Unsure Iran Nuke Program 'Annihilated' After US Strikes: Official

During a Sunday morning press conference, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that "many presidents have dreamed of delivering the final blow to Iran's nuclear program, and none could until President Trump."

The defense secretary then said to the world's cameras: "We devastated the Iranian nuclear program."

In Israel, though, there's less certainty about whether Iran's nuclear development has been smashed to pieces by U.S. strikes on three of Iran's major nuclear facilities overnight, and whether the country's nuclear program is permanently out of the game.

"Is it fully, fully annihilated? We don't know yet," a senior Israeli official told Newsweek. "Nobody knows yet," added the source, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. "It requires a lot of intelligence work."

Israel and the U.S. both say they are still conducting assessments of the impact of American aircraft, massive "bunker-buster" bombs and submarine-launched cruise missiles on the central Iranian facilities of Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow.

Initial takes suggest "all three sites sustained extremely severe damage," General Dan Caine, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Sunday. Trump late on Saturday described Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities as "completely and totally obliterated."

Yet analysts say it is very hard to judge whether the Iranian nuclear program, shrouded in mystery, has centrifuges squirreled away, or where exactly it is keeping many kilograms of unaccounted-for, highly enriched uranium. There may even still be entire sites no one knows about, experts add, on top of the difficulties working out the extent of destruction to areas so deep underground.

Satellite imagery published on Sunday indicated several large craters at an ash-covered Fordow, damage to buildings at Isfahan and a 5.5-meter diameter crater directly over part of the underground facility at Natanz, according to imagery provider Maxar.

Iran Says Nuclear Treaty Being Used to Start Wars Not Prevent Them

Iran's envoy to the United Nations has said that the treaty serving as the linchpin for curbing the spread of nuclear weapons has been used to spark conflict rather than promote peace following strikes from the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic.

In a statement delivered Sunday to the U.N. Security Council and shared with Newsweek, Iranian Permanent Representative to the U.N. Amir Saeid Iravani said the "pattern is evident" in observing what he viewed to be the exploitation and misuse of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

"The NPT, a cornerstone of the non-proliferation regime, has been manipulated into a political weapon," Iravani said. "Instead of guaranteeing parties' legitimate rights to peaceful nuclear energy, it has been exploited as a pretext for aggression and unlawful action that jeopardize the supreme interests of my country."

Iran, which Iravani described as "a responsible party to the UN Charter and the NPT and a non-nuclear weapon state," has always denied seeking nuclear weapons.

Israel and the U.S. have challenged this premise, citing Iran's decision to significantly ramp up uranium enrichment beyond levels required for peaceful purposes.

Iravani took aim at the U.S. as "a permanent member of this Council, the depository of the NPT, and the only state that has ever used nuclear weapons," as well as Israel, as "an outlaw nuclear-armed regime that refuses to join the NPT despite Security Council Resolution 487."

He warned that, in the wake of these attacks and past Israeli strikes against nuclear sites elsewhere in the Middle East, "there is no assurance that other NPT members will not face similar aggression."

Iran Lawmakers Eye Page From North Korea Nuclear Playbook After US Strikes

Asenior Iranian lawmaker has stated that fellow members of the Islamic Republic's parliament were considering a withdrawal from a multilateral treaty aimed at curbing the proliferation of nuclear weapons after a series of unprecedented U.S. strikes.

To date, North Korea is the only nation to have acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and subsequently withdraw. One other country, South Sudan, opted not to accede to the treaty after gaining independence from Sudan in 2011, joining India, Israel and Pakistan as the world's only non-NPT states.

Pyongyang officially left the NPT in January 2003, just two months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, citing concerns that the United States was planning a preemptive attack against North Korea, and went on to conduct the nation's first nuclear weapons test in 2006.

Iran has always denied seeking nuclear weapons and has yet to signal any shift in its official doctrine. However, officials and lawmakers have increasingly questioned the nation's commitment to the NPT and other international obligations in the wake of a campaign of strikes launched by Israel last week and joined by the U.S. on Saturday.

In what may be the most serious indication that such a move was being weighed, the semiofficial Tasnim News Agency cited Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesperson for the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, as saying Sunday that "a review of the NPT treaty and Iran's non-membership in it were among the common demands" of lawmakers, which "are scheduled to be on the parliament's agenda."

He also said that "most members of the committee strongly criticized the performance of the International Atomic Energy Agency and called for the cessation of cooperation or suspension of relations with this institution."

Reached for comment, the Iranian Mission to the United Nations shared with Newsweek remarks delivered Sunday to the U.N. Security Council by Iranian Permanent Representative Amir Saeid Iravani in which he made multiple references to the NPT and the international community's apparent failure to uphold the non-proliferation regime.

Referencing Iran as "a responsible party to the UN Charter and the NPT and a non-nuclear weapon state," he condemned the strikes conducted by the United States, "a permanent member of this Council, the depository of the NPT, and the only state that has ever used nuclear weapons, murdering millions in two cities" as well as Israel, "an outlaw nuclear-armed regime that refuses to join the NPT despite Security Council Resolution 487."

Iran's Parliament Votes to Close Strait of Hormuz After US Attacks

Following U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday, the Iranian Parliament has voted in support of closing the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most critical oil transit chokepoints, according to media reports.

Any final decision on retaliation, however, will rest with the country's Supreme National Security Council and leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The parliament vote merely advises him of the option to pursue.

Newsweek has reached out to the White House by email on Sunday morning for comment.

Why It Matters

The U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites—dubbed "Operation Midnight Hammer"—in Isfahan, Fordow and Natanz marks the first direct involvement of America in the escalating crises between Iran and Israel.

The action has received backlash, with many citing the lack of congressional approval for the military move.

The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. At its narrowest point, the strait is about 21 miles wide, with two shipping lanes that are 2 miles wide in each direction.

Around 20 percent of global oil trade passes through the Strait. Some experts have said that if Iran were to cut off access to the Strait, it could spike oil prices by 30 to 50 percent immediately, with gas prices likewise rising by as much as $5 per gallon.

During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, Iran targeted oil tankers and oil loading facilities. These actions did not fully block the Strait but caused sharp increases in shipping insurance premiums and delayed maritime traffic.

Iranian President Issues New 'Response' Warning to US

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has issued a new warning that the United States must face consequences for its attacks on nuclear facilities within the country.
...
The U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites—dubbed "Operation Midnight Hammer"—in Isfahan, Fordow and Natanz marks the first direct involvement of America in the escalating crises between Iran and Israel.

Israel initially struck Tehran and several other cities in "Operation Rising Lion," a campaign it said was meant to preempt a planned Iranian attack and disrupt Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Iran, which has said its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, has since retaliated, though Israeli defense systems—bolstered by U.S. military technology—have intercepted about 99 percent of incoming missile fire, according to Israeli officials on Saturday morning in an X, formerly Twitter, post. Iran hit a hospital in southern Israel on Thursday, and local reports noted that buildings in Tel Aviv were on fire from Iranian missiles on Friday.

The U.S. is Israel's closest ally, providing billions of dollars in military aid annually.

Meanwhile, many politicians on both sides have criticized Trump's decision to strike Iran without congressional approval.

What To Know

During a Sunday phone call with French President Emmanuel Macron, Pezeshkian said that the U.S. must "receive a response to their aggression," according to Iran's official news agency, IRNA, as reported by The Times of Israel.

Pezeshkian directly confronted Washington's approach to negotiations, telling the French leader that in previous U.S.-Iran talks mediated by Oman, America "used to say something different at the negotiating table than in practice."

The Iranian president framed the conflict in broader terms, referencing "ongoing US-backed Israeli aggression on Iran" and asserting that Iran has "firmly defended ourselves" against military attacks. He emphasized Iran's continued willingness to engage diplomatically "within the framework of international laws," while accusing the other side of demanding "Iran's surrender."

Saturday's U.S. operation involved seven B-2 stealth bombers dropping 14 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs on the heavily fortified Fordow and Natanz nuclear facilities, while Tomahawk cruise missiles struck the Isfahan site. The 25-minute operation utilized 125 aircraft total and marked the first combat deployment of the massive "bunker buster" bombs.

Adding to the dramatic escalation, Pezeshkian personally participated in protests in Tehran denouncing the U.S. strikes, with state television broadcasting images of the president moving through crowds in a central Tehran square.

AOC Says Trump's Iran Strikes 'Clearly Grounds for Impeachment'

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, ripped President Donald Trump for his military attack against Iran on Saturday, saying the move is "absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment."

Democrats are splintered on Trump's move to strike the Middle Eastern country amid days of back-and-forth strikes between Israel and Iran as tensions catapulted amid nuclear concerns.

Newsweek previously reached out to the White House via email for comment on the strikes.

Why It Matters

Over the past few days, the conflict between Israel and Iran has escalated dramatically, with Trump calling for the evacuation of Tehran, Iran's capital city home to over 9.5 million people.

Israel initially struck Tehran and several other cities in "Operation Rising Lion," a campaign it said was meant to preempt a planned Iranian attack and disrupt Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Iran, which has said its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, has since retaliated, though Israeli defense systems—bolstered by U.S. military technology—have intercepted about 99 percent of incoming missile fire, according to Israeli officials in Saturday morning in an X, formerly Twitter, post. Iran hit a hospital in southern Israel on Thursday, and local reports noted that buildings in Tel Aviv were on fire from Iranian missiles on Friday.

The United States is Israel's closest ally, providing billions of dollars in military aid annually. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Thursday that Trump was expected to make a decision about whether to directly support Israel in its attacks against Iran within the next two weeks.

What To Know

Trump announced the military action on Truth Social on Saturday evening saying the U.S. attacked sites in Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan in Iran. The president said all planes are now out of Iranian air space and "safely on their way home." The president addressed the nation at 10 p.m. ET regarding the strikes.

USA

Trump Floats Potential 'Deal' With Harvard as Judge Hands Admin New Loss

A federal judge in Massachusetts dealt a new legal blow to the Trump administration in its fight with Harvard University involving international students, as the president said a "historic" deal could be in the works.

Why It Matters

President Donald Trump and his administration have cracked down on Ivy League institutions like Harvard and Columbia University since he took office in January, accusing the universities of perpetrating antisemitism by allowing pro-Palestinian student activism on campus.

The Department of Homeland Security also terminated nearly $3 million in grants to Harvard after the university defied a list of demands that included discontinuing its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, reforming student discipline policies and implementing a mask ban.

The Trump administration recently said it would revoke the certification for Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), which enables the university to enroll international students. A judge issued a temporary restraining order to halt the policy.

What To Know

In the new ruling on Friday, Judge Allison Burroughs, an Obama nominee, ruled with Harvard, saying that the Trump administration is "Enjoined from implementing, instituting, maintaining, or giving any force or effect" to revoking Harvard's SEVP and Exchange Visitor Program.

In a post to Truth Social following the ruling, Trump then floated a possible "deal" with the school.

"Many people have been asking what is going on with Harvard University and their largescale improprieties that we have been addressing, looking for a solution. We have been working closely with Harvard, and it is very possible that a Deal will be announced over the next week or so," the president wrote.

"They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right. If a Settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be 'mindbogglingly' HISTORIC, and very good for our Country. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"

Gavin Newsom Challenges JD Vance: 'How About Saying It to My Face?'

California Governor Gavin Newsom on Friday challenged Vice President JD Vance to a debate after the vice president visited Los Angeles and accused him of "egging on" violent disorder in the city.

In a post on his X, formerly Twitter, account, the governor wrote to Vance: "...Since you're so eager to talk about me, how about saying it to my face?"

Newsweek contacted Vance for comment on Saturday via email to the White House press office outside of regular office hours.

Why It Matters

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have expanded their operations in Los Angeles and across the country as President Donald Trump seeks to deliver on his campaign promise to carry out the largest deportation operation in United States history.

ICE conducted raids in Los Angeles and faced large protests in the city that largely remained peaceful with some instances of violence that prompted Trump to order the deployment of 4,000 members of California's National Guard and 700 U.S. Marines to assist in stopping violence, even as Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass insisted local law enforcement had the matter under control and a legal battle has pursued.

The raids are following legal directive from federal authorities, but critics have raised concerns about the treatment of migrants by federal authorities as well as the tactics used by immigration agents during the raids.

What To Know

During his visit to Los Angeles on Friday to meet with troops, including Marines who were been deployed to protect federal buildings in the city, Vance said rioters had been "egged on" by Newsom and Bass, telling reporters: "The president has a very simple proposal to everybody in every city, every community, every town whether big or small. If you enforce your own laws and if you protect federal law enforcement, we're not going to send in the national guard because it's unnecessary.

He added: "But if you let violent rioters burn great American cities to the ground, then of course we're going to send in federal law enforcement to protect the people the president was elected to protect."

Alito Says Supreme Court Forcing Judges To Do 'Mind-Bending Exercises'

Justice Samuel Alito said a U.S. Supreme Court's ruling requires judges to engage in "mind-bending exercises" in a dissent on Friday.

Alito said under the court's decision, the judge must review "the nature and circumstances" of a defendant's offense but is not allowed to consider "the seriousness of the offense."

"The Court interprets the Sentencing Reform Act to mean that a federal district-court judge, when considering whether to impose or alter a term of supervised release, must engage in mind-bending exercises," Alito wrote in a dissent, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Why It Matters

The court's ruling could influence what judges take into account when considering changes to the terms of a supervised release.

What To Know

The case centers around Edgardo Esteras, who was arrested and charged with domestic violence and other crimes while on supervised release for conspiring to distribute heroin. A district court revoked his supervised release and ordered 24 months of reimprisonment, arguing that his sentence must "promote respect for the law."

The Supreme Court said the district court was not permitted to consider a statute requiring the sentence to "reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the court's majority opinion. She wrote that "text, structure, and precedent all point in the same direction" in finding that district courts cannot consider the seriousness of the offense in revoking supervised release.

Barrett said district courts "generally enjoy discretion over sentencing," but Congress chose to limit their discretion in this instance.

Alito said the court failed to consider the practical application of its ruling.

"Veteran trial judges often complain that their appellate colleagues live in a world of airy abstractions and do not give enough thought to the practical effects of their holdings. Today's decision is likely to earn the rank of Exhibit A in the trial bench's catalog of appellate otherworldliness," Alito said.

Alito argued that the court's ruling lacks textual support and "it does not solve the problem faced by a judge who is compelled to consider the nature and circumstances of an offense but forbidden to consider its seriousness."

Justice Jackson Warns of 'Reputational Cost' to Supreme Court After Ruling

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the majority's ruling in a case over fuel providers challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of California's vehicle emissions regulations, writing in a Friday dissent that the decision comes at a "reputational cost" for the court, according to documents reviewed by Newsweek.

She added that the decision gives "fodder" to the perception that "moneyed interests, enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens."

Why It Matters

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and sided with fuel producers, ruling they have Article III standing to challenge the EPA's approval of California's vehicle emissions regulations.

California's regulations "require automakers to limit average greenhouse-gas emissions across their vehicle fleets and manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles," the lawsuit reads. Several fuel producers sued the EPA over its approval of California's regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act by approving regulations that target "global climate change rather than local California air quality problems."

Jackson's dissent raised concerns about public perception of favoritism and the court being swayed by powerful interests. Confidence in the Supreme Court has steadily declined for decades, with 47 percent of Americans viewing the court favorably and 51 percent unfavorably, according to a 2024 Pew Research Center survey. In 1987, 76 percent held a favorable view, while just 17 percent viewed the court unfavorably.

What To Know

In Diamond Alternative Energy v. Environmental Protection Agency, Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued the majority opinion, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's liberals, holding that fuel producers have standing to challenge the EPA's approval of the California regulations.

In her dissent, Jackson called out the majority's application of "standing doctrine," writing that "When courts adjust standing requirements to let certain litigants challenge the actions of the political branches but preclude suits by others with similar injuries, standing doctrine cannot perform its constraining function."
...
What People Are Saying

Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, told NBC on Friday: "I don't think this case is an example of the court being inconsistent or somehow more favorable to moneyed interests than other sorts of interests. It's not like the court has closed the door on environmental groups."

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion: "Justice Jackson separately argues that the Court does not apply standing doctrine 'evenhandedly'...A review of standing cases over the last few years disproves that suggestion."

Back on Monday...

Proposed CA bill would ban officers from wearing face masks

The Brief

California lawmakers introduced a bill that would ban law enforcement officers from covering their faces and require visible identification during operations.
The bill was prompted by rising concerns over agents wearing masks during recent ICE raids.

The bill includes exemptions for health and safety situations and would make violations a misdemeanor.

LOS ANGELES - Local, state, and federal law enforcement officers who cover their faces while conducting official business could face a misdemeanor charge in California under a new proposal announced Monday.

What we know: If approved, the bill would require all law enforcement officials to show their faces and be identifiable by their uniform, which should carry their name or other identifier. It would not apply to the National Guard or other troops and it would exempt SWAT teams and officers responding to natural disasters.

What they're saying: State Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat representing San Francisco, and State Sen. Jesse Arreguin, a Democrat representing Berkeley and Oakland, said the proposal seeks to boost transparency and public trust in law enforcement. It also looks to protect against people trying to impersonate law enforcement, they said.

"We are seeing more and more law enforcement officers, particularly at the federal level, covering their faces entirely, not identifying themselves at all and, at times, even wearing army fatigues where we can’t tell if these are law enforcement officers or a vigilante militia," Wiener said.

"They are grabbing people off our streets and disappearing people, and it’s terrifying," he added.

"Law enforcement officers are public servants and people should be able to see their faces, see who they are, know who they are. Otherwise, there is no transparency and no accountability," Wiener said.

Reason for bill's proposal

Dig deeper: Videos of ICE raids showing masked officers using unmarked vehicles and detaining people have sparked concern across California.

Ed Obayashi, a special prosecutor in California and an expert on national and state police practices, said the proposed legislation would be tough to enforce because federal officers can’t be prosecuted by state courts for activities performed during their official duties.

"If they are following federal directives, they are following federal law," Obayashi said.
...
The other side:

Todd Lyons, ICE’s acting director, has defended his officers using facemasks, saying they wear them to protect themselves from death threats and online harassment.

"I’m sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks, 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," he said at a news conference earlier this month in Boston to announce nearly 1,500 arrests in the region as part of a monthlong "surge operation."