By JAIMIE DING, Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal judge on Monday blocked a California law from going into effect that would ban federal immigration agents from covering their faces, but they will still be required to wear clear identification showing their agency and badge number.

California became the first state to ban most law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings under a bill that was signed in September following the summer of high-profile raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in Los Angeles.

The Trump administration filed a lawsuit in November challenging the laws, arguing that they would threaten the safety of officers who are facing harassment, doxing, and violence and that they violated the constitution because the state is directly regulating the federal government.

Related Articles

Gabbard’s office warns attorney against sharing classified complaint with Congress

Trump administration’s changes to the CFPB cost Americans $19B, a new report says

Governors tackle rising cost of living with relief checks, tax cuts and housing policy

Trump’s immigration crackdown is straining federal courts. Judges are raising the alarm

US snowboard star Chloe Kim calls for unity after Trump bashes teammate over immigrant crackdown

Judge Christina Snyder said she issued the initial ruling because the mask ban as it was enacted did not also apply to state law enforcement authorities, discriminating against the federal government. The ruling could have national implications as states grapple with how to deal with federal agents enforcing the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

It left open the possibility to future legislation banning federal agents from wearing masks if it applied to all law enforcement agencies, with Snyder writing “the Court finds that federal officers can perform their federal functions without wearing masks.” The ruling will go into effect Feb. 19.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill in September banning some law enforcement officers from wearing masks, neck gaiters, and other facial coverings. It was slated to go into effect Jan. 1 but was put on hold due to the lawsuit.

In addition to exempting state law enforcement officers, it made exceptions for undercover agents, protective equipment like N95 respirators or tactical gear, and other situations where not wearing a mask would jeopardize an operation. Snyder sided with the federal government, which argued this exemption was discriminatory against federal agents.

Newsom also signed into law a measure requiring law enforcement to wear clear identification showing their agency and badge number while on the job, which was challenged by the federal government but upheld by the judge.

California State Sen. Scott Weiner, who proposed the original bill to ban facial coverings, said Monday he would immediately introduce new legislation to include state police in the law.

“ICE and Border Patrol are covering their faces to maximize their terror campaign and to insulate themselves from accountability,” Weiner said in a news release. “We will ensure our mask ban can be enforced.”

At a Jan. 14 hearing, Snyder repeatedly asked the government’s lawyer, Tiberius Davis, to explain why banning masks would impede the federal law enforcement in carrying out their duties, if officers rarely wore masks prior to 2025.

Davis cited claims by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that there has been a multifold increase in assaults and threats against federal officers. He also brought up an incident in Los Angeles where three women are being accused of livestreaming while following an ICE agent home and posting the address on Instagram.

“There is real deterrence on the officer’s safety and ability to perform their duties,” Davis said.

Cameron Bell, California Department of Justice attorney, challenged his claims, saying there was no concrete evidence that federal agents can’t perform their duties without facial coverings.

Bell referenced declarations from U.S citizens who have been detained by federal agents but thought they were being kidnapped.

“It’s obvious why these laws are in the public interest,” Bell said.

The federal government also argued in legal briefs that allowing California’s legislation could lead other states to be “emboldened to impose similar unconstitutional restraints.”

Davis cited a statement from Newsom in July 2025 during an interview posted online where he discussed the mask ban bill, saying, “It appears that we don’t have the legal authority for federal agents but we do for other law enforcement authorities.”

Los Angeles County supervisors voted in December to enact a local ordinance banning law enforcement from wearing masks that went into effect Jan. 8. However, the sheriff’s department said it would not enforce the ordinance until after the court ruled on the statewide mask ban. The Los Angeles Police Department had also said it wouldn’t enforce the mask ban.

By MARY CLARE JALONICK, KEVIN FREKING and SEUNG MIN KIM

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats have begun tentative talks with the White House on their demands for “dramatic” new restrictions on President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, trading offers just days before funding for the Department of Homeland Security is set to expire.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Monday that Democrats had sent the White House their list of demands for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal law enforcement agencies. The White House said it had responded with a counterproposal. No details were immediately available.

Time is running short, with another partial government shutdown threatening to begin Saturday. Among the Democrats’ demands are a requirement for judicial warrants, better identification of DHS officers, new use-of-force standards and a stop to racial profiling. They say such changes are necessary after two protesters were fatally shot by federal agents in Minneapolis last month.

“Republicans, the clock is ticking,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. “We have sent you our proposals and they are exceedingly reasonable.”

There were some small signs of progress. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Monday there has been a “good back and forth” between the sides on substantive issues and Republicans would send a counterproposal “soon.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., center, arrives for a news conference after a policy luncheon on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

Still, it was unclear if the two sides could find agreement on the charged issue of immigration enforcement — and as rank-and-file lawmakers in both parties were skeptical about finding common ground.

Many Republicans have balked at the Democrats’ requests and some have demands of their own, including the addition of legislation that would require proof of citizenship before Americans register to vote and restrictions on cities that they say do not do enough to crack down on illegal immigration.

And Democrats who are furious about ICE’s aggressive crackdown have said they won’t vote for another penny of Homeland Security funding until enforcement is radically scaled back.

“Dramatic changes are needed at the Department of Homeland Security before a DHS funding bill moves forward,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Monday. “Period. Full stop.”

Trump deals with Democrats

Congress is trying to renegotiate the DHS spending bill after President Donald Trump agreed to a Democratic request that it be separated out from a larger spending measure that became law last week. That package extended Homeland Security funding at current levels only through Feb. 13, creating a brief window for action as the two parties discuss new restrictions on ICE and other federal officers.

The funding issue came to a head after ICU nurse Alex Pretti was shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol officer in Minneapolis on Jan. 24, and some Republicans suggested that new restrictions were necessary. Renee Good was shot by ICE agents on Jan. 7.

While he agreed to separate the funding, Trump has not publicly responded to the Democrats’ specific demands, and it is uncertain whether he would agree to any of them.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said late last week that the Trump administration is willing to discuss some items on the Democrats’ list, but “others don’t seem like they are grounded in any common sense, and they are nonstarters for this administration.”

Democratic demands

Schumer and Jeffries have said they want immigration officers to remove their masks, to show identification and to better coordinate with local authorities. They have also demanded a stricter use-of-force policy for the federal officers, legal safeguards at detention centers and a prohibition on tracking protesters with body-worn cameras.

The Democrats say Congress should end indiscriminate arrests, “improve warrant procedures and standards,” ensure the law is clear that officers cannot enter private property without a judicial warrant and require that before a person can be detained, it’s verified that the person is not a U.S. citizen.

Republicans have said they support the requirement for DHS officers to have body-worn cameras — language that was in the original DHS bill — but have balked at many of the other Democratic asks.

“Taking the masks off ICE officers and agents, the reason we can’t do that is that it would subject them to great harm, their families at great risk because people are doxing them and targeting them,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Monday. “We’ve got to talk about things that are reasonable and achievable.”

Tennessee Sen. Bill Hagerty said on “Fox News Sunday” that Democrats are ”trying to motivate a radical left base.”

“The left has gone completely overboard, and they’re threatening the safety and security of our agents so they cannot do their job,” Hagerty said.

Related Articles

Gabbard’s office warns attorney against sharing classified complaint with Congress

Trump administration’s changes to the CFPB cost Americans $19B, a new report says

Governors tackle rising cost of living with relief checks, tax cuts and housing policy

Trump’s immigration crackdown is straining federal courts. Judges are raising the alarm

US snowboard star Chloe Kim calls for unity after Trump bashes teammate over immigrant crackdown

Consequences of a shutdown

In addition to ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the homeland security bill includes funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Transportation Security Administration. If DHS shuts down, Thune said last week, “there’s a very good chance we could see more travel problems” similar to the 43-day government closure last year.

Lawmakers in both parties have suggested they could separate out funding for ICE and Border Patrol and pass the rest of it by Friday. But Thune has been cool to that idea, saying instead that Congress should pass another short-term extension for all of DHS while they negotiate the possible new restrictions.

Many Democrats are unlikely to vote for another extension. But Republicans could potentially win enough votes in both chambers from Democrats if they feel hopeful about negotiations.

“The ball is in the Republicans’ court,” Jeffries said Monday.

Associated Press writers Joey Cappelletti and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

CORTINA D’AMPEZZO, Italy — Lindsey Vonn sustained a “complex tibia fracture that is currently stable but will require multiple surgeries to fix properly” after her devastating crash in the Olympic downhill, the skier said in a social media post late Monday.

Vonn posted on Instagram about her left leg injuries following her fall in Sunday’s race.

“While yesterday did not end the way I had hoped, and despite the intense physical pain it caused, I have no regrets,” Vonn said.

Nine days before Sunday’s crash, the 41-year-old Vonn ruptured the anterior cruciate ligament in her left knee. It is an injury that sidelines pro athletes for months, but ski racers have on occasion competed that way. She appeared stable in two downhill training runs at the Milan Cortina Games.

Onlookers on social media wondered if Vonn’s ruptured ACL could have played a factor in her crash near the top of the Olympia delle Tofana course, where she has a World Cup record 12 wins. That maybe, on a healthy left knee, she would not have clipped a gate and been able to stave off a crash.

“Yesterday my Olympic dream did not finish the way I dreamt it would,” Vonn said. “It wasn’t a story book ending or a fairy tail, it was just life. I dared to dream and had worked so hard to achieve it. Because in downhill ski racing the difference between a strategic line and a catastrophic injury can be as small as 5 inches.

“I was simply 5 inches too tight on my line when my right arm hooked inside of the gate, twisting me and resulted in my crash. My ACL and past injuries had nothing to do with my crash whatsoever.”

Vonn’s father said Monday that the American superstar will no longer race if he has any influence over her decision.

“She’s 41 years old and this is the end of her career,” Alan Kildow said in a telephone interview with the Associated Press. “There will be no more ski races for Lindsey Vonn, as long as I have anything to say about it.”

When she arrived in Cortina last week, Vonn said she had consulted with her team of physicians and trainers before deciding to move ahead with racing. The International Ski and Snowboard Federation does not check on the injury statuses of athletes.

“I firmly believe that this has to be decided by the individual athlete,” FIS president Johan Eliasch said Monday in Bormio. “And in her case, she certainly knows her injuries on her body better than anybody else. And if you look around here today with all the athletes, the athletes yesterday, every single athlete has a small injury of some kind.

“What is also important for people to understand, that the accident that she had yesterday, she was incredibly unlucky. It was a one in a 1,000,” Eliasch added. “She got too close to the gate, and she got stuck when she was in the air in the gate and started rotating. No one can recover from that, unless you do a 360. … This is something which is part of ski racing. It’s a dangerous sport.”

The Italian hospital in Treviso where Vonn was being treated said late Sunday she had undergone surgery to repair a broken left leg. The U.S. Ski Team said that Vonn was “in good hands with a team of American and Italian physicians.”

Pierre Ducrey, the sports director for the International Olympic Committee, noted Vonn was able to train and had experts counseling her decision.

“So from that point of view, I don’t think we can say that she should or shouldn’t have participated. This decision was really hers and her team to take,” he said. “She made the decision and unfortunately it led to the injury, but I think it’s really the way that the decision gets made for every athlete that participates to the downhill.”

Teammate Keely Cashman also said Vonn’s ACL had nothing to do with her crash.

“Totally incorrect,” said Cashman — who was knocked unconscious in a serious crash five years ago. “People that don’t know ski racing don’t really understand what happened yesterday. She hooked her arm on the gate, which twisted her around. She was going probably 70 miles an hour, and so that twists your body around. That has nothing to do with her ACL, nothing to with her knee. I think a lot of people are ridiculing that, and a lot people don’t (know) what’s going on.”

The hours after her crash was filled with opinions, mostly of the second-guessing nature. Like, should someone have intervened?

“It’s her choice,” veteran skier Federica Brignone of Italy said. “If it’s your body, then you decide what to do, whether to race or not. It’s not up to others. Only you.”

Related Articles

Should Lindsey Vonn have been allowed to race?

Vonn’s Olympic fall: Breaking it all down

Vonn’s legacy was built on pushing the limits

Lindsey Vonn breaks leg in downhill crash at Winter Olympics, in stable condition at hospital

Doctors explain how Lindsey Vonn can ski at Olympics with a ruptured ACL

By DAVID KLEPPER

WASHINGTON (AP) — The general counsel for Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Monday warned the attorney for an anonymous government employee not to directly share a top-secret complaint about Gabbard’s handling of classified material with members of Congress.

Related Articles

Trump administration’s changes to the CFPB cost Americans $19B, a new report says

Governors tackle rising cost of living with relief checks, tax cuts and housing policy

Trump’s immigration crackdown is straining federal courts. Judges are raising the alarm

US snowboard star Chloe Kim calls for unity after Trump bashes teammate over immigrant crackdown

Ghislaine Maxwell appeals for clemency from Trump as she declines to answer questions from lawmakers

The letter to attorney Andrew Bakaj is the latest escalation in the back-and-forth accusations over the classified complaint, which alleges that Gabbard withheld top-secret material for political reasons.

Two inspectors general for the intelligence community reviewed the claim and found that particular allegation did not appear to be credible. Gabbard has denied any wrongdoing and said she did all she could to ensure the report reached Congress.

Democrats on the House and Senate intelligence committees have blasted Gabbard’s office over the handling of the complaint, questioning why it took eight months for it to be sent to select members of Congress as required by law.

Here’s what to know about the complaint and the next steps:

What is known about the complaint

The anonymous author of the complaint works for a U.S. intelligence agency and in May filed a report claiming that Gabbard withheld classified information for political reasons. Gabbard oversees the coordination of 18 intelligence agencies.

The complaint made two allegations, according to a memo sent to lawmakers by the current inspector general, Christopher Fox: The first is that the “distribution of a highly classified intelligence report was restricted for political purposes,” while the second accuses Gabbard’s general counsel of failing to report a potential crime to the Justice Department.

In June, the inspector general at the time, Tamara Johnson, found that the claim Gabbard distributed classified information along political lines did not appear to be credible, Fox said in the memo to lawmakers. Johnson was “unable to assess the apparent credibility” of the accusation about the general counsel’s office, Fox wrote.

The watchdog said he would have deemed the complaint non-urgent, meaning it never would have been referred to lawmakers.

“If the same or similar matter came before me today, I would likely determine that the allegations do not meet the statutory definition of ‘urgent concern,’” Fox wrote.

The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and other news outlets reported that the complaint stemmed from a call between two foreign nationals that mentioned someone close to President Donald Trump and was intercepted by the National Security Agency. The news reports, which cited anonymous sources, said the discussion involved Iran and that Gabbard notified the White House personally, while the complaint accused her of blocking the NSA from reporting the interaction to other agencies. The AP could not immediately confirm the reports.

The NSA declined to offer details about the complaint Monday, saying in a statement that it works closely with the FBI and others to investigate the mishandling or disclosure of classified information.

Gabbard’s office warns attorney

Bakaj, a former CIA officer and an attorney for the person making the complaint, offered to meet with certain lawmakers or their staffs to discuss the allegations and his concerns about Gabbard’s review.

ODNI’s general counsel warned against that in its letter Monday, noting that Bakaj or his client could face criminal charges if they improperly revealed classified material during the briefing.

“The highly classified nature of the underlying complaint increases the risk that you or your client inadvertently or otherwise breaks the law by divulging or mishandling classified information,” the general counsel’s office wrote. “You may have other means of appearing in front of Congress, but this is not it.”

Bakaj did not immediately respond to questions Monday about the letter.

Under federal law, intelligence whistleblowers are entitled to ask to refer their complaints directly to key lawmakers even if the inspector general finds them non-credible, so long as they deem the allegations urgent. That determination was made by the original watchdog, but the complaint didn’t reach lawmakers until last week.

Copies of the top-secret complaint were hand-delivered beginning last week to the “Gang of Eight” — a group comprised of the House and Senate leaders from both parties as well as the four top lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Additional meetings for the remaining members are tentatively set for Wednesday.

Democrats decry delay as GOP backs Gabbard

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he will push Gabbard for more answers about the underlying complaint and why it took so long to get the report to lawmakers.

The number of redactions make it hard to evaluate the allegations, he said.

“The fact that this sat out there for six, seven, eight months now and we are only seeing it now, raises huge concerns in and of itself,” Warner said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

The Republicans who lead the intelligence committees are backing Gabbard, making it less likely the panels take further steps to investigate the complaint.

“It seemed like an effort by the president’s critics to undermine him,” Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s chairman, wrote Saturday on X.

Intelligence chief responds to critics

Gabbard noted in a lengthy social media post Saturday that Johnson was appointed interim inspector general for the intelligence community during President Joe Biden’s administration.

She included a detailed timeline that she said shows she acted quickly to ensure the complaint reached Congress. Gabbard wrote that she was aware of the complaint in June and believed the investigation had ended after it was found non-credible, only for the inspector general’s office to inform her in December that the complaint had to be reviewed, redacted and sent to members of Congress.

“I took immediate action to provide the security guidance to the Intelligence Community Inspector General who then shared the complaint and referenced intelligence with relevant members of Congress last week,” Gabbard wrote.

She also accused Warner and the media of trying to use the complaint to smear her name.