An Achievable Balance

Recent enforcement actions involving personnel wearing face coverings without visible identification have prompted renewed questions about how policing should look and feel in public spaces. The issue is not whether laws are being enforced; rather, it concerns the public’s ability to recognize lawful authority and understand who is responsible for the actions unfolding around them. For decades, state and local law enforcement agencies have worked to balance two principles that should never be in conflict: protecting the safety of officers and preserving the visibility and accountability that form the foundation of public trust in policing. In our work at the International Association of the Chiefs of Police (IACP), we hear about the challenges that law enforcement officers face in the United States and around the world. The observations and solutions outlined in this essay are based on listening sessions and meetings we’ve had with police leaders across the country and the globe.

The central problem arises when masked, unidentifiable personnel conduct operations in public areas where residents expect to clearly see and recognize legitimate law enforcement officers and operations. When an operation takes place in a neighborhood, outside a business, or near a home, and the personnel involved are fully masked with no visible identifiers, bystanders often cannot discern whether the actors are law enforcement, what agency they represent, or what authority they are exercising. That confusion produces several predictable challenges.

First, it can fuel fear and rumor, especially on social media, at the very moment calm is most needed. Second, it increases the likelihood that well-intentioned individuals will misinterpret the situation and attempt to intervene, inadvertently creating additional risk during an already dynamic encounter. Third, it leaves local police departments answering questions about actions they did not plan or control, because the public naturally turns to the agencies they know and trust for clarity.

The policing profession has long recognized that clear agency markings and reliable officer identifiers are essential tools for maintaining safety during operations and ensuring the credibility of post-incident communication and investigations. These elements are not cosmetic; they are part of the infrastructure that supports accountability and transparency, both internally and externally. Over time, most state and local law enforcement agencies have adopted a set of practices that, when used together, form a stable and workable framework for addressing these challenges.

First, police officers are expected to be reasonably identifiable. This means the public should be able to see a visible agency affiliation and either an officer’s name or a unique identifier that the agency can trace to a specific individual. This practice allows for accountability while also protecting officer safety in appropriate circumstances.

Second, while agencies do permit face coverings, their use is generally limited to narrow, documented circumstances, such as protective equipment, severe weather conditions, or specific tactical assignments. Even under such conditions, a visible identifier is typically required on the outer garment so that authority and affiliation remain recognizable to the public and partner agencies.

Third, accurate identification is obviously a key element of an agency’s investigations and accountability systems. The ability to accurately process complaints, conduct internal reviews, and perform meaningful after-action evaluations depends on knowing exactly who was present and what role each individual played in an operation. Identifiers linked to reliable records are fundamental to these processes.

Significantly, these practices are not intended to discount or dismiss the very real threats that officers face. In recent years, doxing, targeted harassment, and attempts to intimidate officers and their families have increased, posing significant safety concerns. These realities justify the careful use of protective measures, but they should not result in eliminating the public’s ability to recognize lawful authority during enforcement actions. Many departments have adopted a practical middle ground that addresses both safety and transparency. Rather than requiring the display of personal name tags, they rely on visible, non-name identifiers such as large alphanumeric codes or badge numbers that are tied to agency records. This approach preserves accountability for commendations, complaints, legal proceedings, and after-action reviews, while reducing unnecessary exposure of personal information. In this way, agencies can safeguard personnel without compromising the visibility that supports community trust.

Working in masks without visible identifiers carries risks that extend beyond the immediate operation. The absence of clear information invites speculation and misinformation, often spreading quickly online before facts can be established. It can also encourage impersonators who mimic the appearance of anonymous enforcement operators to intimidate, defraud, or commit violence. Such impersonation threatens public safety and can significantly undermine confidence in legitimate law enforcement. Additionally, anonymous operations make it more difficult for police leaders to provide accurate information to their communities, a critical element of maintaining legitimacy and encouraging the cooperation of witnesses and victims.

To address these issues, state and local leaders have developed practical, safety-conscious approaches to officer identification and transparency. These approaches, drawn from proven state and local practices, help agencies balance transparency with officer safety. The following approaches are options for agencies to adopt that would maintain public trust while still protecting officers:

• Make visible, unique identifiers the default in any public operation. Agencies should require readable alphanumeric codes on outer garments, mapped to agency records. Officers do not need to display their names to be accountable; the key is traceability.
• Limit face coverings to clearly defined and documented reasons. When masks are used for protective equipment, weather, specialized tactical roles, or credible threats, supervisors should approve their use in advance and ensure that identifiers remain visible. A brief after-action review can confirm that the operational justification was appropriate.
• Coordinate early with local commanders and align communications. When feasible, advance notice to local chiefs or sheriffs, the sharing of identifier formats, and synchronizing of public information plans can prevent confusion, reduce the risk of blue-on-blue encounters, and help ensure that community members receive consistent and accurate information.

Although modest, these steps enhance safety, reduce confusion, and strengthen accountability.

For the public, visible identifiers answer a fundamental question: Who is enforcing the law at this moment? When residents can clearly identify an officer’s affiliation, scenes tend to remain calmer, and post-incident communication is more credible. For officers, unique identifiers reduce the chance of misidentification in complaints, support accurate recognition of good work, and document actions in ways that withstand scrutiny in both court and community settings. For command staff, visible identifiers and early coordination lower the risk of mistaken identity during joint operations and enhance the ability to brief elected officials, partners, and community stakeholders.

Recognizing the importance of these principles, the Board of Directors of the IACP adopted a resolution in the summer of 2025 addressing concerns about masked officers involved in the enforcement of federal immigration law and setting forth clear expectations for law enforcement agencies. The resolution affirms that immigration enforcement is a legitimate federal responsibility and that violence against officers is never acceptable, regardless of political disagreement. It emphasizes that clear communication, strong interagency coordination, and adherence to professional standards are essential to protect both officers and the public. Because face coverings and the absence of visible identification can create confusion and undermine trust, the resolution supports the use of visible agency affiliation and unique, non‑name identifiers. It also allows for limited, justified masking when operational integrity, undercover safety, or credible threats necessitate it. The resolution condemns doxing and calls for aggressive prosecution and stronger legal protections. It also reinforces the need for accessible, transparent complaint processes to maintain accountability and community trust.

In the end, policing depends on the trust and support of the public. The community must be able to recognize who police officers are, understand the authority they are exercising, and rely on effective and accessible systems that ensure accountability. At the same time, agencies must protect the men and women who perform difficult and sometimes dangerous work. Fortunately, safety and visibility do not have to be competing values. With thoughtful policy, clear identifiers, narrowly tailored masking practices, strong interagency coordination, and transparent communication, agencies can uphold both. This model reflects longstanding state and local practice, aligns with national guidance, and strengthens the legitimacy required for effective public safety now and in the future.

About the Authors

Terrence M. Cunningham is the deputy executive director and chief operating officer of the IACP. He is a 35‑year member of the Wellesley, Massachusetts, Police Department and served as police chief for 17 years. From 2015 to 2016, Cunningham was the president of the IACP.

Gene Voegtlin is the director of policy, research, and public affairs at the IACP, where he leads policy development, research initiatives, and strategic communications.

About the Series

Building on its prior work on issues at the intersection of federalism, national security, domestic deployment, and law enforcement activities, the CNAS National Security Law Program is publishing a commentary series that assesses the legal and policy considerations for improving the framework governing law enforcement use of military uniforms and gear. Read more about the series here.

The CNAS project on federalism and national security was initiated with support from the Democracy Innovation Fund, Defending Democracy Together Institute. Continued work on domestic deployment and related issues has been made possible by support from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

About the Center for a New American Security

As a research and policy institution committed to the highest standards of organizational, intellectual, and personal integrity, CNAS maintains strict intellectual independence and sole editorial direction and control over its ideas, projects, publications, events, and other research activities. CNAS does not take institutional positions on policy issues, and the content of CNAS publications reflects the views of their authors alone. In keeping with its mission and values, CNAS does not engage in lobbying activity and complies fully with all applicable federal, state, and local laws. CNAS will not engage in any representational activities or advocacy on behalf of any entities or interests and, to the extent that the Center accepts funding from non-U.S. sources, its activities will be limited to bona fide scholastic, academic, and research-related activities, consistent with applicable federal law. The Center publicly acknowledges on its website annually all donors who contribute.