DHS Official Blasts Swalwell Over Proposal to Strip ICE Agents’ Driver’s Licenses
A key figure at the Department of Homeland Security has publicly condemned Representative Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) for his pledge to strip driver’s licenses from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who wear masks during operations. This act, according to the DHS official, represents a misuse of political influence and poses a significant threat to law enforcement.
The backlash came swiftly after Swalwell vowed to revoke the driving rights of masked federal agents, insisting they should identify themselves or face losing their California-issued licenses. “He’s a member of Congress! He is supposed to create legislation… Not demonize the men and women enforcing the law!” exclaimed DHS Assistant Secretary Ken McLaughlin in an online statement. This statement reflects the urgency and seriousness of the federal government’s response.
Swalwell’s remarks are part of a growing trend among certain lawmakers in California who show increasing hostility toward ICE enforcement. In a recent gubernatorial forum, Swalwell, a candidate for governor, vowed to remove legal protections from federal officers involved in what he deemed excessive immigration enforcement. He even suggested prosecuting ICE agents for alleged crimes, asserting that they would “lose their immunity” and, ultimately, their driver’s licenses. His rhetoric carries weight as he declared, “Good luck walking to work.”
This controversy comes on the heels of California’s passage of a contentious law banning ICE officers from wearing masks during operations. Signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, this law was supposed to take effect in December but is currently paused due to legal challenges from the federal government, which contends that the state lacks the authority to impose such restrictions on federal personnel. The situation remains in flux as a court hearing looms on January 12.
The debate over this law highlights a deep divide between state and federal perspectives. While California leaders argue that the mask ban promotes transparency and accountability, federal officials cite ongoing threats to ICE agents and their families as justification for concealed identities. For instance, Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli asserted that the law was primarily aimed at aiding “leftist radicals” in exposing the identities of federal agents, further escalating tensions. The impasse reflects significant legal ambiguity surrounding state intervention in federal law enforcement.
This conflict is underscored by tragic incidents, such as the fatal shooting of Renee Good, a 37-year-old woman encountered by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. While DHS claimed the agent acted in self-defense, video evidence raised questions about the validity of those claims. Swalwell referenced this incident when advocating for the “ICE OUT Act,” a proposed bill designed to abolish qualified immunity for ICE agents—a measure that would make it easier to sue them for their actions.
The future of the ICE OUT Act remains uncertain, yet it illustrates the escalating attempts by state-level politicians to undermine the federal immigration system. “Swalwell knows federal law prevails, and a state prosecutor can’t do what he promises,” pointed out Harmeet Dhillon, Deputy General Counsel for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice. The ramifications of such proposals have drawn sharp rebukes from current and former federal officials.
The actions of Swalwell have highlighted the delicate balance between enforcing federal law and the rights of state officials. Remarks from DHS Assistant Secretary McLaughlin criticized Swalwell’s tactics as a political assault against law enforcement. “This is not how democracy works—you don’t get to threaten people with loss of rights just because you don’t like how the law is applied,” he noted, emphasizing the importance of protecting law enforcement officers engaged in their duties.
Concerns over safety resonate deeply within the ICE community, particularly following several incidents of doxxing and harassment faced by agents. The use of masks, as they contend, shields their families from potential violence. The Pew Research Center indicates that California houses over 2.25 million undocumented immigrants, making many areas hazardous for ICE operations amid targeted enforcement.
Despite mounting protests and escalating rhetoric, the law remains firmly in favor of federal authority. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution restricts states from impeding federal operations. Legal experts warn that threatening to revoke the licenses of federal agents based solely on their method of executing duties could pave the way for dangerous precedents in law enforcement practices.
Many supporters of ICE and the DHS caution that Swalwell’s initiatives could thwart agents from carrying out their responsibilities, fostering disorder in immigration enforcement. One ICE field agent voiced the grim reality agents face, stating, “Imagine trying to do your job and facing criminal charges or losing your license because a local politician doesn’t like your uniform.”
Amid these tensions, migrant advocacy groups have rallied behind both the California law and Swalwell’s statements, arguing that unmasking is vital for community safety and ensuring civil oversight. Demonstrations against ICE actions, especially in Los Angeles, remain both persistent and vocal, indicating strong community opposition to current federal practices.
This political struggle over immigration enforcement in California is far from new. However, Swalwell’s recent comments mark a decisive escalation in the ongoing battle. With the January 12 court hearing on the horizon, both legal scholars and citizens are keenly observing the extent to which California can regulate federal agents and how far federal authorities will go to assert their enforcement capabilities.
"*" indicates required fields
