When federal agents detained Palestinian activist Mohsen Mahdawi in Colchester this April, they arrived in plainclothes, unmarked vehicles, and face coverings. The optics set off a political firestorm among Vermont officials.

Governor Phil Scott said the use of masks by law enforcement “feels like something you’d expect in a third-world country.” Senate President Pro Tem Phil Baruth denounced “masked and plainclothes officers,” claiming such tactics erode public trust. State Senator Becca White, who witnessed the arrest, described the agents as masked and hooded and expressed deep concern about the secretive and intimidating nature of the operation. Vermont’s entire congressional delegation—Senators Bernie Sanders and Peter Welch, and Rep. Becca Balint—issued a joint statement condemning the arrest and specifically called out the use of “plainclothes, masked federal agents in unmarked cars.”

Their concern, however, appears to apply only to law enforcement officers—specifically those tasked with immigration enforcement. Not one of these elected officials has publicly objected to protesters or rioters wearing masks to obscure their identity. Nor has anyone proposed laws to prevent private citizens from using masks to commit crimes or evade identification during acts of vandalism or violence.

Protection for Me, Not for Thee

This selective outrage raises legitimate questions about motive and consistency. Governor Scott, for example, is accompanied by an armed security detail provided by the Vermont State Police—public employees carrying firearms for his personal protection. That’s accepted as standard, even though a pair of armed officers is arguably more threatening than a masked federal agent making an arrest.

Yet when it comes to federal agents using face coverings to protect their identities—especially in politically charged immigration operations—Scott and others express outrage. The implication is that the mask itself is threatening, not the badge or the behavior.

This despite the fact that agents working for ICE, CBP, or HSI have legitimate reasons for concealing their faces: online doxxing, cartel threats, and credible threats of targeted violence. It wasn’t long ago that Border Patrol Agent Luis Aguilar was intentionally run over and killed by a cartel smuggler in California. Agent Brian Terry was gunned down in Arizona by a cartel rip crew in 2010. Federal agents—especially those involved in immigration and border operations—have long faced elevated risk. The use of balaclavas and tactical masks dates back to at least 2011, with public images showing masked ICE agents during operations like “Project Red Tidings” and “Pipeline Express.”

In short: it’s not new. It’s not theater. It’s standard.

☕️ Cheaper than a maple latte. More satisfying than cable news. Support real Vermont journalism for $5/month. ☕️

The Vermont Double Standard

To be clear, it’s absolutely fair to demand accountability from government actors. But why does that concern vanish when private actors—activists, protesters, or even violent rioters—mask up to avoid the same thing?

Vermont legislators haven’t introduced bills to restrict face coverings at public demonstrations. None of the same officials outraged by ICE have criticized masked protesters, even in cases where those masks were clearly used to evade arrest or accountability.

This is the heart of the contradiction: when a government employee masks up to avoid being stalked online or targeted by transnational gangs, it’s labeled authoritarian. But when a civilian does it to break windows or throw bricks during a protest, it’s considered protected expression.

Baruth, Scott, and others have framed the Mahdawi arrest as emblematic of a larger shift toward secrecy and intimidation. Yet the truth is that face coverings for agents didn’t begin under Trump or Biden. They began as a direct response to agent fatalities, rising cartel threats, and a recognition that some jobs require anonymity to be done safely.

Where’s the Consistency?

Vermonters are smart enough to recognize a double standard when they see one. If masks represent danger, that judgment shouldn’t depend on who’s wearing them. If the public is uncomfortable with anonymity, it should apply to all parties—not just to those tasked with enforcing the law.

Instead, Vermont’s leadership has embraced a deeply inconsistent narrative: law enforcement masks are un-American, while protester masks are sacrosanct. ICE officers trying to prevent retaliation against their families are the villains; anonymous protest participants who obstruct traffic or assault police are unmentioned.

And it’s hard to ignore the political convenience of this posture. The Mahdawi case was immediately amplified as a rallying cry for immigrant protections and a chance to score points against federal enforcement policy. No such attention is given to federal agents’ safety or context. No benefit of the doubt. Just outrage.

Final Thought

No one is above scrutiny—not federal agents, not protesters, not the governor, nor state or federal senators and representatives. But public trust isn’t built through selective outrage. If Vermont’s leaders want to restore faith in government and law enforcement, they’d do well to start with intellectual honesty.

Because a mask, after all, is only as threatening as the story you choose to tell about the person wearing it.

If you found this information valuable and want to support independent journalism in Vermont, become a supporter for just $5/month today!

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram

#fyivt #vermontpolitics #doublestandard #maskcontroversy

Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!

Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!

Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!