Mathew Silverman is the National President of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA).
Maryland lawmakers are advancing Senate Bill 1 (SB0001), a proposal that would prohibit law enforcement officers operating in the state, including federal officers, from wearing face coverings such as balaclavas, ski masks, or neck gaiters while on duty. While the bill is framed as a transparency and public safety measure, it raises significant legal, operational, and safety concerns that deserve careful consideration.
This proposal is not simply a matter of attire. It has real-world implications for officer safety, intergovernmental authority, and the effective enforcement of federal law.
As drafted, the legislation would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. It is unclear how the state envisions compliance when federal officers, acting under federal authority, are conducting federal operations. The notion that local or state law enforcement could be placed in a position of confronting federal agents during active enforcement actions presents serious jurisdictional and practical problems. Such scenarios would create confusion, increase risk, and undermine coordinated law enforcement efforts.
SB0001 would also require the Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission to establish policies emphasizing “transparency,” while explicitly stating that generalized concerns for officer safety are insufficient justification for concealing an officer’s identity. Supporters of the bill have suggested that masked officers create fear or undermine public trust.
That argument does not fully reflect the realities facing law enforcement today.
Law enforcement officers do not wear face coverings by preference. They are uncomfortable, restrictive, and often hinder breathing and communication. Officers wear them when circumstances require it, primarily to protect themselves and their families. Anyone who experienced prolonged mask use during the COVID era understands the practical drawbacks.
The threat environment has changed dramatically in recent years, largely due to social media and the ease with which personal information can be weaponized. In multiple recent incidents, officers involved in enforcement actions have had their identities, home addresses, family information, and photographs of their residences posted online within hours. This was not done to promote accountability. It was done to intimidate and, in some cases, to incite violence.
This practice, commonly referred to as doxing, poses a real and growing danger. Many officers reasonably fear that mandatory exposure of their identities will lead to increased threats, harassment, and targeted attacks against them and their families. Those concerns are based on experience, not speculation, and reports of such incidents have increased markedly in the past year alone.
Importantly, these risks are not limited to cases involving misconduct. Officers are often targeted simply for performing their duties or representing a particular agency. The threat is driven by hostility toward the mission or the uniform, not by wrongdoing.
Maryland’s proposal does little to enhance public safety while potentially increasing the vulnerability of the very individuals tasked with protecting the public. Existing accountability mechanisms, badge numbers, agency oversight, internal investigations, and judicial review, already provide meaningful checks on law enforcement conduct without unnecessarily exposing officers to personal risk.
While some politicians in Maryland are working diligently to ban federal law enforcement officers from wearing protective masks while performing duties expressly authorized by Congress, there has been a conspicuous silence when it comes to addressing the criminals and extremist agitators who routinely conceal their identities to evade accountability. There is no serious legislative push to prohibit Antifa and other violent actors from masking their faces while they loot, assault, vandalize, and terrorize our communities.
Instead, the focus is being misplaced on the very men and women who are lawfully and honorably doing their jobs, protecting federal buildings, enforcing court orders, and safeguarding the public. These officers are not hiding from the law; they are enforcing it, often under credible threat to themselves and their families. The masks they wear are not symbols of secrecy, they are tools of protection in an era where doxxing, threats, and targeted violence against law enforcement have become commonplace.
Why are we targeting the protectors instead of the agitators? Why are we restraining those who uphold the law while giving a free pass to those who openly seek to undermine it? If the real goal is transparency and public safety, then legislation should be aimed squarely at those who use masks to commit crimes and escape identification, not at the professionals who put themselves in harm’s way to keep this country and our communities safe.
There is also a broader issue that cannot be ignored. Federal law enforcement officers do not operate at the direction of state legislatures. They are employees of the United States government, charged with enforcing federal law. They ultimately report through to leadership appointed by the President of the United States to carry out federal missions.
The current Department of Justice leadership team consisting of Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche have made clear that threats, assaults, and organized targeting of law enforcement officers, including doxing, will not be tolerated. Individuals who engage in such conduct can expect to be identified, investigated, and prosecuted under federal law. State-level actions that complicate or interfere with federal operations inevitably draw the attention of federal leadership because they directly affect the execution of federal responsibilities.
Public safety is not served by policies that overlook operational realities or discount legitimate safety concerns. It is served by ensuring that law enforcement officers, state, local, and federal, can perform their duties effectively and safely, without unnecessary risk to themselves or their families.
As lawmakers consider SB0001, they should carefully weigh its practical consequences. Well-intentioned legislation can still have dangerous outcomes if it fails to account for the evolving threat landscape and the structure of federal authority.
Maryland should reconsider this proposal before it creates risks that cannot be easily undone, and puts law enforcement officers and the general public in jeopardy.
Maryland lawmakers are advancing Senate Bill 1 (SB0001), a proposal that would prohibit law enforcement officers operating in the state, including federal officers, from wearing face coverings such as balaclavas, ski masks, or neck gaiters while on duty. While the bill is framed as a transparency and public safety measure, it raises significant legal, operational, and safety concerns that deserve careful consideration.
This proposal is not simply a matter of attire. It has real-world implications for officer safety, intergovernmental authority, and the effective enforcement of federal law.
As drafted, the legislation would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. It is unclear how the state envisions compliance when federal officers, acting under federal authority, are conducting federal operations. The notion that local or state law enforcement could be placed in a position of confronting federal agents during active enforcement actions presents serious jurisdictional and practical problems. Such scenarios would create confusion, increase risk, and undermine coordinated law enforcement efforts.
SB0001 would also require the Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission to establish policies emphasizing “transparency,” while explicitly stating that generalized concerns for officer safety are insufficient justification for concealing an officer’s identity. Supporters of the bill have suggested that masked officers create fear or undermine public trust.
That argument does not fully reflect the realities facing law enforcement today.
Law enforcement officers do not wear face coverings by preference. They are uncomfortable, restrictive, and often hinder breathing and communication. Officers wear them when circumstances require it, primarily to protect themselves and their families. Anyone who experienced prolonged mask use during the COVID era understands the practical drawbacks.
The threat environment has changed dramatically in recent years, largely due to social media and the ease with which personal information can be weaponized. In multiple recent incidents, officers involved in enforcement actions have had their identities, home addresses, family information, and photographs of their residences posted online within hours. This was not done to promote accountability. It was done to intimidate and, in some cases, to incite violence.
This practice, commonly referred to as doxing, poses a real and growing danger. Many officers reasonably fear that mandatory exposure of their identities will lead to increased threats, harassment, and targeted attacks against them and their families. Those concerns are based on experience, not speculation, and reports of such incidents have increased markedly in the past year alone.
Importantly, these risks are not limited to cases involving misconduct. Officers are often targeted simply for performing their duties or representing a particular agency. The threat is driven by hostility toward the mission or the uniform, not by wrongdoing.
Maryland’s proposal does little to enhance public safety while potentially increasing the vulnerability of the very individuals tasked with protecting the public. Existing accountability mechanisms, badge numbers, agency oversight, internal investigations, and judicial review, already provide meaningful checks on law enforcement conduct without unnecessarily exposing officers to personal risk.
While some politicians in Maryland are working diligently to ban federal law enforcement officers from wearing protective masks while performing duties expressly authorized by Congress, there has been a conspicuous silence when it comes to addressing the criminals and extremist agitators who routinely conceal their identities to evade accountability. There is no serious legislative push to prohibit Antifa and other violent actors from masking their faces while they loot, assault, vandalize, and terrorize our communities.
Instead, the focus is being misplaced on the very men and women who are lawfully and honorably doing their jobs, protecting federal buildings, enforcing court orders, and safeguarding the public. These officers are not hiding from the law; they are enforcing it, often under credible threat to themselves and their families. The masks they wear are not symbols of secrecy, they are tools of protection in an era where doxxing, threats, and targeted violence against law enforcement have become commonplace.
Why are we targeting the protectors instead of the agitators? Why are we restraining those who uphold the law while giving a free pass to those who openly seek to undermine it? If the real goal is transparency and public safety, then legislation should be aimed squarely at those who use masks to commit crimes and escape identification, not at the professionals who put themselves in harm’s way to keep this country and our communities safe.
There is also a broader issue that cannot be ignored. Federal law enforcement officers do not operate at the direction of state legislatures. They are employees of the United States government, charged with enforcing federal law. They ultimately report through to leadership appointed by the President of the United States to carry out federal missions.
The current Department of Justice leadership team consisting of Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche have made clear that threats, assaults, and organized targeting of law enforcement officers, including doxing, will not be tolerated. Individuals who engage in such conduct can expect to be identified, investigated, and prosecuted under federal law. State-level actions that complicate or interfere with federal operations inevitably draw the attention of federal leadership because they directly affect the execution of federal responsibilities.
Public safety is not served by policies that overlook operational realities or discount legitimate safety concerns. It is served by ensuring that law enforcement officers, state, local, and federal, can perform their duties effectively and safely, without unnecessary risk to themselves or their families.
As lawmakers consider SB0001, they should carefully weigh its practical consequences. Well-intentioned legislation can still have dangerous outcomes if it fails to account for the evolving threat landscape and the structure of federal authority.
Maryland should reconsider this proposal before it creates risks that cannot be easily undone, and puts law enforcement officers and the general public in jeopardy.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments