California face covering ban, Federal law enforcement, ICE DHS federal agents, Gavin federal supremacy, Draconian California law.

BREAKING: Assistant AG Harmeet Dhillon confirms a new draconian California democrat law “banning” face coverings for federal law enforcement WILL NOT be able to cover ICE, DHS, or any federal agent.

“Wrong.”

• YOU MAY ALSO LIKE TO WATCH THIS TRENDING STORY ON YOUTUBE.  Waverly Hills Hospital's Horror Story: The Most Haunted Room 502

Gavin’s about to learn about federal supremacy.

The masks will… pic.twitter.com/wLjebxRSAq

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) September 15, 2025

In a recent tweet, Assistant AG Harmeet Dhillon revealed that a new California Democrat law aiming to ban face coverings for federal law enforcement will not be able to cover ICE, DHS, or any federal agent, as they fall under federal jurisdiction. This revelation has sparked controversy and raised questions about the extent of state authority over federal agencies.

Dhillon’s statement, which simply reads “Wrong,” suggests that California Governor Gavin Newsom may soon face pushback from federal authorities over the enforcement of this new law. The tweet implies that Newsom is about to learn the hard way about federal supremacy, a principle that asserts the superiority of federal law over state law in certain matters.

The implications of this revelation are significant, as it raises concerns about the potential conflict between state and federal laws regarding the use of face coverings by federal law enforcement agencies. The tweet also hints at the broader issue of states’ rights versus federal authority, a perennial debate in American politics.

It remains to be seen how this situation will unfold and whether Governor Newsom will back down in the face of federal pressure. The tweet has garnered significant attention on social media, with many users expressing their opinions on the matter.

Overall, this tweet serves as a reminder of the complex relationship between state and federal governments and the ongoing struggle for power and authority between the two. As the debate over face coverings and other pandemic-related measures continues to evolve, it is clear that the issue is far from resolved. Stay tuned for further updates on this developing story.

In a recent announcement, Assistant AG Harmeet Dhillon shed light on a new California Democrat law that seeks to ban face coverings for federal law enforcement. However, in a surprising turn of events, Dhillon confirmed that this law will not apply to ICE, DHS, or any federal agents. This revelation has sparked a wave of discussions surrounding federal supremacy and the extent of state laws in dictating federal policies.

The issue at hand highlights the complex relationship between federal and state jurisdictions, with California attempting to enforce a law that may clash with federal mandates. As tensions rise, it is evident that there is a need for clarity and understanding regarding the balance of power between state and federal authorities.

The decision to exempt ICE, DHS, and federal agents from the face covering ban underscores the intricate legal landscape that governs law enforcement practices. While states have the authority to pass legislation within their borders, federal agencies operate under a different set of rules that prioritize national security and law enforcement objectives.

As the debate unfolds, it is essential to consider the implications of conflicting laws on the enforcement of policies and the protection of citizens. The rift between California’s attempt to regulate face coverings for federal law enforcement and the federal government’s stance on the matter raises questions about the effectiveness of state laws in addressing national security concerns.

In light of these developments, it is crucial for stakeholders to engage in constructive dialogue and seek common ground to ensure the safety and well-being of all citizens. By fostering cooperation and understanding between state and federal authorities, we can work towards a harmonious relationship that upholds the rule of law and protects the rights of individuals.

The recent announcement by Assistant AG Harmeet Dhillon serves as a reminder of the complexities inherent in the legal system and the need for clear communication and collaboration between different levels of government. As we navigate through these challenging times, it is important to uphold the principles of federal supremacy while respecting the rights and autonomy of states.

In conclusion, the revelation that the new California Democrat law banning face coverings for federal law enforcement will not apply to ICE, DHS, or any federal agents highlights the intricate dynamics of the legal system. By recognizing the nuances of state and federal jurisdiction, we can work towards a more cohesive and effective governance structure that prioritizes the safety and security of all citizens.

Sources:
– Source 1: https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1967398108637139323?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
– Source 2: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G02Z30tWUAAihwP.jpg

California face covering ban, Federal law enforcement masks, ICE face masks, DHS mask policy, Federal agent mask ban, Harmeet Dhillon statement, Federal supremacy law, Gavin Newsom ruling, Draconian face covering law, California Democrat ban, Federal agent mask controversy, Enforcement mask regulation, Federal mask exemption, ICE mask mandate, DHS facial covering, California law enforcement policy, Federal mask restriction, Gavin Newsom face covering, Harmeet Dhillon confirmation, Federal agent mask prohibition