The Brief

Masked, plain-clothed agents are grabbing people they believe are undocumented immigrants off the streets, pulling them into unmarked vehicles and swiftly detaining them.

In other cases, masked agents are running checkpoints in the middle of Washington, D.C., and in L.A., and questioning people in their cars.

And in some situations, agents are smashing the windows of those cars in order to pull a person out.

Immigration agents are often given wide latitude in their work. That means a lot of what the public has been witnessing since President Trump took office — and may be shocked by — is likely legal.

But what is allowable is becoming more unclear as these tactics test the limits of the law, according to immigration law experts. 

"In that sense it is a very confusing time for lawyers and the public alike," says Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the UCLA School of Law's Center for Immigration Law & Policy.

NPR asked immigration law experts to explain what we know is and isn't legal when it comes to immigration enforcement.

Q. Federal law gives immigration officials power to arrest and question immigrants. What are those powers? Can they make arrests without warrants?

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency in charge of immigration enforcement, was created after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Congress gave the burgeoning agency wide power to question, search and arrest immigrants, or those believed to be immigrants, without a warrant.

In the past, that has looked like investigative police work and arresting specific targets in specific locations, says Nithya Nathan-Pineau, a policy attorney and strategist at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, a nonprofit that advocates for immigrants' rights.

The Immigration and Nationality Act states that in order to arrest someone without a warrant, officers must have cause, or reasonable suspicion, to believe that a person is in the U.S. illegally and likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.

"Leaving aside border checkpoints, immigration officers have power to consensually question anyone, just like a police officer does; but to detain someone even briefly they require individualized suspicion that the person is violating the immigration laws," UCLA's Arulanantham says.

In the past, immigration officers would look for specific people who had, say, a final removal order issued against them or someone who was convicted of a crime – something that would render an individual deportable, Arulanantham says.

Now, in some cases immigration officers are executing major dragnets and arresting large groups of people and then determining if each person is in the U.S. illegally by interrogating them after they've been stopped.

That happened in Los Angeles this summer, when immigration agents stopped people based on their perceived race or ethnicity, according to a lawsuit filed by ACLUSoCal, among others. The plaintiffs argue these actions violate the Fourth Amendment's right to privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures.

A federal court agreed, ruling that agents can't rely on factors such as race, speaking Spanish, wearing workman-like clothes, and location (being present at places such as carwashes or Home Depot parking lots) to meet the standard of "individualized suspicion."

What is supposed to happen and what is happening are two different things, however.

"In the last few weeks it seems that immigration enforcement officers appear to be flouting the judge's order, perhaps because the case is now at the Supreme Court," Arulanantham says.

ICE didn't respond to NPR's questions on how it addresses the individualized suspicion metric.

Q. Are immigration enforcement agents allowed to wear masks or otherwise refuse to identify themselves? 

Immigration agents conduct an operation at a car wash on Friday, Aug. 15, 2025, in Montebello, Calif.

(

Gregory Bull

/

AP

)

The widespread masking of immigration agents in the streets and even in federal courthouses has stoked fear among immigrant communities and strong objections from civil rights groups. But acting director of ICE, Todd Lyons, has said it's a necessary response to what he describes as efforts to dox and threaten these agents and their families. ICE has said there has been a dramatic increase in the doxing of agents but has not said how many cases there have been or provided any details. The agency has not provided any information to support their assertion of an increase in agent doxxing.

But Nathan-Pineau says this violates a federal requirement that immigration agents identify themselves as agents as soon as it is "practical" and "safe" to do so during an arrest. (They are not, however, required to provide their personal names.) She says the regulation is interpreted as agents are allowed not to identify themselves during emergency situations where they have to work fast. But she says she doesn't think the current situation constitutes an emergency that would justify agents not identifying what agency they work for.

At the time of publication ICE had not responded to NPR's question on how the "emergency" element had been defined previously, or whether it has changed, or whether agents not identifying themselves is consistent with policy.

While ICE leadership has endorsed agents' use of masks, and the federal law doesn't mention the use of masks explicitly, there are efforts by lawmakers across the country to bar federal agents from hiding their faces outside of medical or tactical reasons or for undercover work. But there are no current laws requiring agents to show their faces.

Q. Where can officers make arrests? Can they arrest people in their home or a private business?

Immigration officers must have a warrant to arrest people at private businesses or homes. However, there are areas outside homes or in and around apartment buildings and businesses that can be considered public spaces. Immigration agents can, and have, made arrests in those types of areas, such as the lobby of an apartment building that's open to the public or parking lots.

Private businesses have the right to decline entry to ICE.

However, ICE agents have used deceptive practices to gain entry into a person's home or business to make arrests without a warrant, according to a lawsuit filed in 2020 against DHS. This has included ICE agents wearing vests that say "POLICE" and misrepresenting themselves as police or probation officers to trick people into allowing them into their homes or businesses. Four years later, a federal court ruled against this practice called 'knock and talk,' putting a stop to it.

Adding to the confusion, by both subjects of investigations and bystanders, is the fact that ICE agents occasionally take part in broader criminal investigations Similarly, there are rules governing law enforcement's right to search and question a person.

At border checkpoints, like at airports or land crossings, agents have wide latitude to ask questions, search people and detain individuals, Arulanantham says. Otherwise, it's important to understand the difference between a consensual encounter with immigration agents, where people have the right to leave the conversation, and actual detention.

People hold signs warning drivers of a checkpoint in the northern part of Washington on Aug. 30, 2025.

(

Mark Schiefelbein

/

AP

)

"The first question anyone should ask if they feel uncomfortable when approached by any officer is 'Am I free to leave?' If the officer says they are, then they should exercise their right to leave," Arulanantham says. "If the officer tries not to answer, the individual should repeat the question until they get a response."

"If the officer says 'No,' then the person should not resist, but need not cooperate in any other way," he continues. "So they need not answer any questions."

In general, a person doesn't need to cooperate in any search if officers do not have a warrant, Arulanantham says.

Q. What are the rules on use of force?

Immigration agents are allowed by law to use force when they have "reasonable grounds to believe that such force is necessary," according to DHS policy.

However, the law states an immigration officer should "always use the minimum non-deadly force necessary to accomplish the officer's mission and shall escalate to a higher level of non-deadly force only when such higher level of force is warranted …"

And DHS policy encourages agents to use de-escalation techniques, less-lethal force and less-lethal devices, such as pepper spray and flashbang grenades, in achieving their goals. And they are to only use force that is "objectively reasonable."

It's unclear what the agency considers "objectively reasonable," says Nathan-Pineau.

There have been dozens of recorded instances where agents have smashed car windows in order to pull out suspects. ProPublica reported nearly 50 such instances across the country in the first six months of President Trump's second term.

The government keeps "no relevant statistics" on how common this tactic was previously, according to the outlet. ICE had not responded to NPR's question on this tactic or questions on whether their use of force policy has changed.

"The tremendous use of force that is being used to arrest people is honestly really disturbing to watch," Nathan-Pineau says, citing the incidents of window smashing and agents tackling people in public.

And it's been difficult to determine whether ICE has made changes in its use-of-force policy, she says. "Because the most recent policy that we can find certainly says that the type of force that we're seeing is for emergency situations." Nathan-Pineau says it's helpful that bystanders are increasingly recording these interactions with immigration authorities, but she has seen that immigration officers are intimidating and even arresting these public observers of raids.

That is happening, Arulanantham says, even though federal law allows bystanders the right to record "so long as they are not interfering with the arrest."
Copyright 2025 NPR

As Los Angeles homeowners grapple with the expense of rebuilding after last year’s devastating fires, an L.A. City Councilmember is putting forward an idea that could lower some costs.

Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Pacific Palisades, has introduced a motion to explore waiving part of the city’s portion of the local sales tax for fire victims who purchase rebuilding materials in the city.

The 1% of the local 9.75% sales tax that goes into the city’s general fund would be given back to consumers under the proposal. The waiver could apply to lumber, appliances and other rebuilding goods purchased within the city.

The motion, introduced Friday by Park and seconded by Councilmember John Lee, says: “The City should do everything within its power to alleviate the financial burden for these residents and businesses in order to facilitate their return and stabilize the Pacific Palisades community.”

Would it make much of a difference? 

Economists told LAist the proposal could help many homeowners mitigate the high cost of rebuilding, but likely wouldn’t tip the scales for under-insured, under-resourced property owners.

“It wouldn't hurt if it's very well designed and easy to use,” said Alexander Meeks, a director at the Santa Monica-based Milken Institute. “But I'm not sure if it's really going to tackle the scale of the financial challenge that survivors are facing.”

Meeks noted that the tax waiver wouldn’t lower up-front costs such as environmental testing, architectural design and permitting. And it may not help homeowners sourcing raw materials from outside the city.

Zhiyun Li, a UCLA Anderson School of Management economist, said the waiver could help some homeowners justify the additional cost of rebuilding more fire-safe structures.

“Homeowners must typically pay out of pocket to upgrade to IBHS+ standards, which are more stringent,” Li said. “The tax waiver could encourage upgrading to IBHS+ standards or investing more in mitigation, thereby reducing future risk and improving the likelihood of maintaining insurance coverage.”

What’s next for the proposal? 

The proposed tax relief would not be available to properties that have been sold since the fires started in January 2025.

The motion has been sent to the City Council’s budget and fire recovery committees. If approved by the full council, it would require the city administrative officer, the Office of Finance and the city attorney to report back to the council within 60 days on options for crafting a tax relief plan.

The motion calls for the report to consider factors such as how to minimize the burden of administering the tax relief, what documentation homeowners would have to submit and what it would cost the city to oversee the program.

Senate and House Republican leadership have resurrected a stalled plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security after a record 47-day funding lapse.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a joint statement on Wednesday that the House will take up a measure passed by the Senate last week to fund most of DHS except Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol through the end of September.

Republicans would then attempt to fund ICE and Border Patrol for three years using a party-line budget reconciliation bill that would not require support from Democrats.

"In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited," Thune and Johnson wrote.

The agreement comes nearly a week after House Republicans dismissed an identical plan, refusing to take up the Senate-passed measure and instead passing a 60-day short term funding bill for all of DHS that had little chance of overcoming Democratic opposition in the Senate.

Johnson called the agreement a "joke" and President Donald Trump declined to publicly endorse the deal. Trump had previously resisted any package that did not include his push to overhaul federal elections known as the Save America Act.

"I think any deal they make, I'm pretty much not happy with it," Trump told reporters last week.

Democrats welcomed the agreement as in line with their pledge not to give ICE any more money without reforms after immigration enforcement agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. But the deal does not include any of the policy demands Democrats are pressing for, such as a ban on masks for immigration enforcement officers and requiring warrants issued by a judge, not just the agency, to enter homes.

"For days, Republican divisions derailed a bipartisan agreement, making American families pay the price for their dysfunction," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote in a statement Wednesday. "Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered."

Trump seemed to bless the revived plan earlier Wednesday, writing on social media that he wants a party-line bill to fund immigration enforcement on his desk by June 1.

"We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won't be able to stop us," Trump wrote.

Despite the shutdown, ICE has been minimally impacted because Republican lawmakers approved $75 billion for ICE through another party-line budget reconciliation bill last year.

Congress is on a two-week recess, but the Senate and House could move to fund all of DHS except ICE and CBP as early as Thursday using a procedure known as unanimous consent that allows the chambers to circumvent formal voting as long as no member objects.

Even during a recess when most members are not in Washington, this could be unpredictable, especially in the House, where many hard-line conservatives oppose a deal that does not fully fund DHS.

"Let's make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again," Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, wrote on X. "If that's the vote, I'm a NO."

If a member does object, that could require waiting for another vote when all members are back from recess.

Claudia Grisales contributed reporting.
Copyright 2026 NPR

California clocked its second-worst snowpack on record Wednesday, a potentially troubling signal ahead for fire season.

It’s an alarming end to a winter that saw abnormally dry conditions briefly wiped from California’s drought map in January, for the first time in a quarter-century.

Though precipitation to date has been near average, much of it fell as rain rather than snow. Then March’s record-breaking heat melted most of the snow that remains. The state’s major reservoirs are nevertheless brimming above historic averages and are flirting with capacity, and a smattering of snow, rain and thunderstorms are dousing last month’s heat wave.

But experts now warn that California’s case of the missing snowpack could herald an early fire season in the mountains.

On Wednesday, state engineers conducting the symbolic April 1 snowpack measurement at Phillips Station south of Lake Tahoe found no measurable snow in patches of white dotting the grassy field.

“I want to welcome you call to probably one of the quickest snow surveys we’ve had — maybe one where people could actually use an umbrella,” joked Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources. “We’re getting a lot of questions about are we heading into a hydrologic drought? The answer is, I don’t know.”

State data reports that California’s snowpack is closing out the season at an alarming 18% of average statewide, and an even more abysmal 6% of average in the northern mountains that feed California’s major reservoirs.

Only the extreme drought year of 2015 beat this year’s snowpack for the worst on record, measuring in at just 5% of average on April 1st, when the snow historically is at its deepest.

“I think everyone's anticipating that it will be a long, busy fire season,” said Lenya Quinn-Davidson, director of the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Fire Network.

“Without a snowpack, and with an early spring, it just means that there’s much more time for something like that to happen.”

‘It’s pretty bizarre up here’ 

In the city of South Lake Tahoe, which survived the massive Caldor Fire in the fall of 2021 without losing any structures, fire chief Jim Drennan said his department is already ramping up prevention efforts.

“It's pretty bizarre up here right now. It really seems like June conditions more than March,” Drennan said. “People are already turning the sprinklers on for their lawns.”

Without more precipitation, an early spring may complicate prescribed burning efforts. But Drennan said fire agencies in the Tahoe basin can start mechanically clearing fuels from forest areas earlier than usual.

“That means we can get more work done,” he said.

It also means homeowners need to start hardening their homes now, said Martin Goldberg, battalion chief and fuels management officer for the Lake Valley Fire Protection District, which protects unincorporated communities in the Lake Tahoe Basin’s south shore.

Goldberg urges residents to scour their yards for burnable materials, create defensible space and reach out to local fire departments with questions. The risks are widespread — from firewood, wooden fences, gas cans, plants, pine needles — even lawn furniture stacked against a house.

“In years past, I wouldn't even think of raking and clearing until May,” Goldberg said. “But my yard's completely cleared of snowpack, and it has been for a couple weeks now.”

‘A haystack fire’

Battalion chief David Acuña, a spokesperson for Cal Fire, said fire season is shaped by more than just one year’s snowpack.

Climate change has been remaking California’s fire seasons into fire years. And California’s recent average to abundant water years have fueled what Acuña called “bumper crops of vegetation and brush.”

“Most of California is like a haystack. And if you’ve ever seen a haystack fire, they burn very intensely because there's layers of fuel,” Acuña said.

Like Quinn-Davidson, Acuña wasn’t ready to make specific predictions about fires to come.

But John Abatzoglou, a professor of climatology at UC Merced, said the temperatures and snowpack conditions this year offer a glimpse of California in the latter decades of this century, as fossil fuel use continues to drive global temperatures higher.

How this year’s fires will play out will depend on when, where and how wind, heat, fuel and ignitions combine. But it foreshadows the consequences of a warmer California for water and fire under climate change.

“This,” Abatzoglou said, “is yet another stress test for the future in the state.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.