Will Police Officers Lose Mask Protection In Washington State?

A ban on the use of masks by law enforcement in Washington state is moving forward after House lawmakers voted along party lines 56-37 on Tuesday to pass a bill that could go into effect immediately if the governor signs it into law.

12th District House Representative and former Chelan County Sheriff Brian Burnett (R-Wenatchee) says supporters of the ban are ignoring the realities of modern policing and endangering officers and their families.

Rep. Brian Burnett, R-12

Senate Bill 5855 would ban officers from wearing any facial covering while on duty and would allow individuals who are detained to seek damages in a civil lawsuit.

Get our free mobile app

Gov. Bob Ferguson has pushed for a bill to criminalize the use of masks by law enforcement officers, and Attorney General Nick Brown urged residents to report ICE activity to an Attorney General Office hotline.

Supporters of the mask ban claim the bill will improve transparency and public trust by ensuring officers are visible and identifiable.

“This policy is about accountability. It affirms a simple principle that when law enforcement officers are exercising their authority in public-facing duties, that public has the right to know who is policing them.” -- Rep. Julio Cortes, D-Everett.

Opponents say Washington state law already requires officers to be identifiable through uniforms and badges and the legislation restricts the use of protective equipment and subjects officers to lawsuits

Earlier this year, The Center Square reported that the Department of Homeland Security said ICE officers had experienced a 1,300% increase in assaults, a 3,200% increase in vehicular attacks, and an 8,000% increase in death threats since January 2025. Officers have been wearing the masks to protect their identities.

Burnett says the legislation puts political messaging over officer safety.

“This bill isn’t about transparency. It’s about politics. When officers are sent into volatile situations involving riots, civil unrest, or organized hostility toward law enforcement, protective gear like face coverings can be the difference between doing the job safely and becoming a target for retaliation, harassment, or worse. Legislators were warned about these risks and chose to ignore them.” -- Rep. Burnett

House Republicans proposed several amendments to protect officers in dangerous situations, but Burnett said most were rejected. Among the defeated amendments was an exception to the mask ban for officers responding to civil unrest when it would be considered a reasonable and necessary protection.

Burnett's amendment to allow plain clothes officers to wear a mask on duty was also defeated.

“Those amendments were common-sense protections. Law enforcement leaders understand the difference between routine policing and situations where officers are dealing with volatile crowds, organized agitators, or individuals intent on intimidation and violence. The majority party had an opportunity to acknowledge that reality and refused.” -- Rep. Burnett

Burnett and House GOP opponents argue transparency should not expose law enforcement to harassment, threats to their families, and doxing of their personal information and addresses.

The Washington State Senate must approve the negotiated version of the bill by March 12th to send the legislation to Governor Bob Ferguson.