Cybersecurity Policy Report, Flock-Off Act Introduced in House to Ban Funding for Vehicle Surveillance Cameras, (Sep 3, 2026)
Legislation that would ban the use of federal funds to install or maintain an automated license plate reader (ALPR) system was introduced yesterday by Rep. Thomas Massie (R., Ky.).
The Flock-Off Act (H.R. 10221, 119th Cong. (2026)) has five Republican co-sponsors and one Democrat, Rep. Ro Khanna (D., Calif.). Named for a well-known provider of ALPR systems, Flock Safety, the bill would apply to all ALPR systems as well as other surveillance systems that track individuals.
No federal funds “may be obligated or expended, directly or indirectly, by the head of any Government agency or by any recipient or subrecipient of Federal funds (including any State, local, or Tribal government)” for covered surveillance systems, according to the bill’s text.
It also would require any covered systems paid for by the federal government or state governments using federal funds to be decommissioned within 180 days of the bill’s passage. It makes exceptions for surveillance systems at the U.S. borders and for highway toll collection.
“The federal government shouldn’t provide ‘security’ grants to cities and police departments that have gone beyond the pale and turned their communities into a version of 1984,” Rep. Massie said in a news release. “The Flock-Off Act withholds federal money from municipalities and police departments that deploy Flock cameras to surveil law-abiding citizens. Federal taxpayers should not be forced to fund the surveillance state.”
“Technology may change, but our constitutional rights do not,” said Rep. Eric Burlison (R., Mo), a co-sponsor of the bill. “The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches, and advances in surveillance technology should not come at the expense of our privacy and liberty. The federal government should not use taxpayer dollars to build a surveillance state that tracks law-abiding Americans. Our rights are unalienable, and Congress has a responsibility to protect them.”
MainStory: TopStory FederalLegislation DataPrivacy