By: Carl Schwartzbaum

New York lawmakers sharply criticized Governor Kathy Hochul’s controversial anti-mask measure included in the newly passed $254 billion state budget, calling it a defanged version of a once-powerful ban that fails to address a growing threat to public safety and Jewish communities. As reported by The New York Post on Thursday, the proposal—which had initially promised to curb masked anonymity used during protests and attacks—was ultimately diluted to a marginal “penalty enhancer” for crimes committed while wearing a face covering.

“This is a nothing burger,” declared state Sen. Anthony Palumbo (R-Suffolk) during heated budget floor deliberations on Thursday, a sentiment echoed throughout the Capitol. As The New York Post report noted, what began as a bold legislative attempt to restore a century-old anti-mask statute was quietly downgraded during closed-door budget talks, resulting in what critics now call symbolic appeasement at best.

The new statute, which had not yet been signed into law as of Thursday evening, doesn’t prohibit mask-wearing outright. Instead, it adds additional jail time for individuals who conceal their identity with a face covering while committing a crime—leaving many legislators and advocacy groups questioning whether the move has any real teeth.

The backdrop to this legislation is a surge in antisemitic incidents, particularly involving masked demonstrators targeting Jewish students and institutions in the wake of the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre in Israel. The New York Post has followed these developments closely, documenting how Jewish lawmakers and organizations have increasingly called for the reinstatement of a mask ban to prevent hate-fueled anonymity from becoming a shield for criminality.

“It’s nice that we have it. We could all go home and say that we did something, but did we really?” asked state Sen. Jack Martins (R-Nassau), frustrated that the legislation lacked urgency and impact. “We passed something, but from a practical standpoint, we did not prioritize the safety of innocent people across the state.”

Assemblyman Kalman Yeger (D-Brooklyn), a vocal advocate for the Jewish community, told The New York Post that the measure falls far short of expectations. “There’s no question about it,” Yeger said. “I know that there are members of this legislature who have been fighting for a long time to rectify a dumb move that was made five years ago, and this is the best we can get and we’ll take it, but it’s probably not enough.”

The “dumb move” Yeger referred to was the 2020 repeal of New York’s original anti-mask statute, which had been in effect for over 100 years. That law was dismantled at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, as public health officials advocated widespread mask usage, and civil liberties groups like the New York Civil Liberties Union raised concerns over potential racial profiling.

As The New York Post report revealed, Governor Hochul had attempted to quietly insert the new mask language into the budget, rather than introduce it through standalone legislation subject to full public debate. The stealth strategy frustrated both Republicans and moderate Democrats, some of whom had supported stronger measures to curb the use of masks in protest violence, especially on college campuses.

State Sen. Jim Skoufis (D-Orange), who authored the original bill on which the governor’s measure was modeled, admitted that Democratic resistance forced a compromise that satisfied no one. “It’s the best proposal that we could get,” Skoufis conceded, in remarks covered by The New York Post.

Assemblyman Sam Berger (D-Queens) expressed similar disappointment, arguing the measure served more to placate than to protect. “There is compromising and then there is placating,” Berger said. He urged fellow legislators to pursue broader initiatives to address the wave of antisemitic incidents that have swept the state over the past year.

“I would hope that when the budget is passed, the legislature can come back and pass real solutions to combat a clear antisemitism problem in the state with the largest population of Jews outside the state of Israel,” Berger added.

Despite the disappointment among lawmakers, a coalition of major advocacy organizations—including the Anti-Defamation League, UJA Federation of New York, NAACP, and the National Urban League—issued a cautiously optimistic statement through the “Unmask Hate Coalition.” As quoted in The New York Post, the coalition welcomed the measure, calling it a step toward greater accountability for those who conceal their identity during criminal acts.

“This law couldn’t have come a day sooner,” the group said. “With this new language on the books, we look forward to long-awaited oversight and accountability for any and all individuals who would hide their faces to commit crimes with impunity, whether terrorizing, vandalizing, or harassing others. NYPD, DA Bragg — do your thing.”

Still, the law’s limitations were on full display just hours after the measure passed. As The New York Post reported, masked anti-Israel demonstrators stormed a Columbia University library, an incident that would likely go unpunished under the new provisions since the statute had not yet taken effect—and may not apply retroactively even when it does.

For many in Albany, the mask provision represents yet another half-measure in a state still grappling with how to protect minority communities while balancing civil liberties. Hochul, whose administration initially championed the anti-mask clause as part of a broader public safety agenda, now faces backlash for delivering a diluted policy that neither deters crime nor satisfies its supporters.

Lawmakers are already signaling their intent to revisit the issue before adjournment in June. Whether that means a stronger anti-mask bill or a broader antisemitism response package remains uncertain.

For now, critics say, the state has merely replaced a century-old deterrent with a symbolic gesture—one that, in the words of Sen. Martins, might look good on paper but leaves vulnerable communities no safer than before.