Legislation scheduled for consideration Thursday by the Assembly Public Safety and Preparedness Committee would prohibit most law enforcement officers operating in New Jersey from wearing face coverings while on duty.

Assemblyman Alex Sauickie said the measure reflects a growing political push to challenge federal immigration enforcement rather than focus on workable public safety policy.

“Democrats in Trenton are increasingly focused on national political messaging instead of solving New Jersey’s real public safety challenges,” Sauickie said. “That kind of performative theater doesn’t help keep communities safe.”

“We should be protecting law enforcement, not passing policies that make their jobs more dangerous.”

The legislation (A1743) would broadly restrict officers from wearing coverings such as balaclavas with eye openings or neck gaiters pulled up to cover their lower faces while on duty.

Sauickie warned lawmakers to avoid policies that place local agencies in conflict with federal partners or create laws that cannot be enforced in practice.

“States don’t get to rewrite federal authority,” Sauickie said. “If we pass laws that can’t legally be enforced or that force conflicts between agencies, we’re not building trust — we’re creating confusion.”

He said public safety policies should be shaped by operational expertise, not political messaging.

“If the goal is better outcomes, you bring in law enforcement leadership and those who understand how these operations actually work,” Sauickie said.

Sauickie disagreed with arguments that banning face coverings would improve public trust or reduce confusion during enforcement operations.

“Law enforcement needs lawmakers who will stand up for officers and defend the rule of law and not treat public safety like open-mic night,” Sauickie said. “Public safety demands seriousness, substance and real leadership, and not punchlines or policy built for headlines.”

The issue gained traction after California enacted the nation’s first statewide ban last year, which is now being challenged in court by the U.S. Department of Justice. Similar legislation has been discussed in other states, including Washington, Missouri and Maryland.

Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell recently said his department would not enforce California’s ban. “It’s not a good public policy decision and it wasn’t well thought out in my opinion,” McDonnell said.

According to Department of Homeland Security statements, immigration officers have faced an 8,000% increase in death threats, including threats against family members. DHS also reported a sharp rise in vehicular attacks against ICE agents over the last year.

Recent local cases have underscored those risks.

In December, twin brothers from Absecon were arrested after allegedly threatening to shoot ICE officers “on sight” and making violent threats against a senior DHS official on social media. One of the suspects also faces weapons charges.

Concerns escalated after reports that a whistleblower leaked personal information of about 4,500 ICE and Border Patrol employees to the “ICE List” database, while Gov. Mikie Sherrill announced plans for a state portal allowing residents to upload images and video of federal enforcement operations.

“Families want safer communities and laws that work in the real world,” Sauickie said. “That requires serious policy work, not symbolic gestures that create more problems than they solve.”