On Saturday, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) announced he’ll soon sponsor “a bill to withhold federal money from municipalities and police departments” that deploy Flock-style cameras to surveil law-abiding citizens. He attached a Gadsden flag parody: a coiled rattlesnake wrapped around an automated license plate reader on a pole, over the words “don’t flock me.”
I’ll soon be sponsoring a bill to withhold federal money from municipalities and police departments that deploy Flock (and other style) cameras to surveil law abiding citizens. pic.twitter.com/FGzE69psxS
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) July 25, 2026
Rather than regulating or litigating the cameras, Massie’s bill would cut off federal funding to every city and police department that installs them. Flock’s business model runs on local government contracts across roughly 6,000 communities, so a funding-withholding bill aims directly at its customer base.
Third Strike In A Week
Massie’s bill is the third Republican move against Flock in a matter of days.
On July 21, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) filed H.R. 9800, the Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act, which would bar federal agencies from purchasing, funding, or accessing automated license plate readers – Flock is named explicitly – along with biometric tracking tech covering fingerprints, iris, voice, and gait. Any data a federal agency obtained would have to be deleted within 30 days and would be inadmissible in court. Burchett’s pitch: “We gotta ban these dadgum things.”
Earlier this month, Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) tried to attach an amendment restricting the readers in committee. It failed, and Perry responded that the fight wasn’t over: “STOP THE FLOCK.”
In April, Massie teamed with Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) on the Surveillance Accountability Act, which would require a probable-cause warrant before federal or local agencies surveil Americans, ban warrantless facial recognition in public spaces, block the government from buying its way around the Fourth Amendment via third-party data brokers, and make individual federal employees personally suable for violations. Boebert’s framing: the government is building a “digital footprint of your entire life” without a warrant or probable cause.
The Company That Swears It Isn’t Tracking You
Flock Safety is the Atlanta company, founded in 2017, whose cameras photograph every passing vehicle and log not just the plate but the “vehicle fingerprint” – make, model, color, dents, roof racks, bumper stickers – into a searchable national network queried by thousands of law enforcement agencies. The install base has now crossed 100,000 cameras, a rollout ZeroHedge has chronicled as the economics of the surveillance state: one quiet law enforcement contract at a time until the country was blanketed.
Last September we noted the coming collision between the license-plate-reader gold rush and the public. Fast forward to June of this year, security researcher Benn Jordan found dozens of Flock cameras streaming publicly, documented AI features that zoom in on and follow individual people, and showed that plotting the stored data amounts to putting a month-long GPS tracker on a car. Flock’s response has been that the system captures discrete points in time rather than “tracking” anyone, though those points can be plotted on a map to reconstruct movements.
Audit logs reviewed by journalists and officials showed local police running searches on behalf of federal agencies, with reasons entered as “ICE” or “immigration” – roughly 4,000 immigration-related lookups through a system whose vendor publishes a blog titled “Does Flock Share Data With ICE? No.” The ACLU’s assessment of that post: the company knew ICE had indirect access the whole time. A Texas police department used the network to search across state lines – including Washington state – for a woman who had an abortion. A San Francisco class action alleges out-of-state and federal agencies – ICE, CBP, FBI, ATF – queried that one city’s cameras more than 1.6 million times in seven months. A Dayton audit turned up 7,000 immigration searches by outside agencies; an Illinois audit stripped access from 47 agencies; small towns discovered the ATF, the Air Force, and the GSA Inspector General rummaging through their feeds.
The system also misfires. As we noted last week, automotive journalist Joel Feder and his wife were boxed in by Minnesota officers with hands on their weapons and patted down in a parking lot after Flock’s system flagged a press vehicle’s manufacturer plate off a flawed partial match. Flock’s response was that the cameras performed as designed.
The Exodus – And The Counterattack
Cities are canceling. Estimates run from 30 to more than 50 depending on the count: Santa Cruz, Mountain View, South Pasadena, Evanston, Oak Park. Denver removed all 110 of its cameras when its contract expired in March. Oshkosh rescinded its contract one day after approving it, after the police chief found Flock had misrepresented its heat-map tracking capabilities to the city council. This month the LAPD let its contract lapse. Meanwhile the crowdsourced DeFlock project has mapped more than 76,000 camera locations, and a parallel campaign of unsanctioned camera removals that ZeroHedge has covered extensively keeps making local news.
Flock has defended itself – insisting that its network helps solve roughly 700,000 crimes a year, and points to genuine wins – including helping track the Brown University shooting suspect in December. Flock also says new contracts outpace cancellations, with nearly 800 fresh city deals in 2026 and a network bigger than ever. In January it added a “Federal Sharing” kill switch to its admin settings, which critics call an admission that the default had been leaking all along.
Why This One Might Bite
Every federal attempt against Flock so far has failed – Perry’s amendment died in committee, and neither the Burchett nor the Massie-Boebert bill has advanced. The opposing coalition is unusual: the left objects to ICE access to local cameras, the right objects to warrantless dragnet tracking of every driver, and the AP notes it is one of the few issues on which a divided country has found common ground. As the Rutherford Institute’s John and Natasha Whitehead wrote earlier this month, the danger isn’t the camera but the AI layer that turns a photograph of a car into the building blocks of a suspect society – an “electronic concentration camp” assembled one pole at a time.
Regarding Massie’s bill – we want to know: which federal grant streams get cut, how “surveilling law-abiding citizens” is defined – any Flock deployment, or only warrantless dragnet use – and whether House leadership gives it floor time. Text is expected in the coming weeks.
