Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Ban Federal Use of License Plate Readers, Restrict Local Funding

What Happened

On Friday, October 2, 2026, Democratic New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democratic Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, and independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the "Ban Flock Act." This proposed legislation aims to effectively terminate the federal government's engagement with automated license plate readers (ALPRs). The bill specifically prohibits federal agencies from purchasing, using, or possessing ALPRs, accessing their collected data, or utilizing federal funds for their acquisition. Furthermore, it would restrict certain federal grant funding for state and local governments that either use ALPRs or contract with ALPR companies, such as Flock Safety. This funding cutoff would impact assistance from departments including Justice, Transportation, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Homeland Security. Senator Sanders stated via social media, "We cannot allow America to become a surveillance state where AI oligarchs profit by giving the government the power to track our every movement." The bill also includes provisions allowing Americans to sue the federal government for alleged violations of their rights through ALPR use, and subjects federal officials who misuse ALPRs to penalties ranging from retraining to termination. An exception is made for ALPRs used exclusively for toll enforcement.

What the Evidence Establishes

The evidence establishes that the "Ban Flock Act" directly targets the federal government's involvement with ALPR technology and seeks to exert financial pressure on state and local entities. The bill's text explicitly states its intent to block federal agencies from all forms of ALPR engagement, including procurement, operation, and data access. Crucially, it does not impose an outright ban on the cameras themselves for state and local use, but rather leverages federal funding as a mechanism for compliance. Agencies like the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security would cease providing federal assistance to municipalities that continue to use ALPRs. Representative Ocasio-Cortez articulated the bill's purpose, stating, "Big Tech companies like Flock Safety have built a mass surveillance system to harvest Americans’ private and personal data without their consent." She emphasized the legislation's role in enforcing constitutional privacy rights against both corporate and government surveillance. Senator Sanders echoed these concerns, highlighting the pervasive nature of ALPRs, claiming, "Going to the doctor? Flock knows. Dropping your kid off at school? Flock is tracking you. Flock is always watching." The legislation also provides a legal avenue for citizens to seek redress for Fourth Amendment violations.

Where the Accounts Conflict

While the "Ban Flock Act" represents a significant legislative effort, it differs in scope and approach from other bills introduced by Republican lawmakers concerning ALPRs. For instance, Republican Tennessee Representative Tim Burchett introduced the "Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act" in July, which would prohibit federal agencies from purchasing or using ALPRs but explicitly permit state and local municipalities to use them if not funded federally. Similarly, Republican Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie's "Flock-Off Act" would prevent federal funds from being used for ALPRs but would leave locally funded networks intact. The key divergence lies in the "Ban Flock Act's" more stringent stance: it would cause any local municipality that uses ALPRs to lose federal funding from multiple agencies, a broader impact than Massie's or Burchett's proposals. In April, Massie, alongside Republican Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert, introduced the "Surveillance Accountability Act," which would require warrants for ALPR use by federal and local agencies and prohibit warrantless facial recognition. Republican Missouri Senator Josh Hawley's "Stop Flock Abuse Act," introduced Wednesday, focuses on guardrails, barring local governments from selling or sharing data with non-governmental third parties, protecting data from FOIA requests, and requiring data deletion after ten days. These various legislative efforts reflect differing philosophies on how to regulate ALPR technology, ranging from outright federal prohibition and local funding cuts to warrant requirements and data retention limits.

Context and Stakes

The introduction of the "Ban Flock Act" occurs amidst a growing national debate over privacy, government surveillance, and the unchecked expansion of artificial intelligence technologies. Companies like Flock Safety have rapidly deployed tens of thousands of ALPR cameras across American communities, raising significant concerns among civil liberties advocates and a bipartisan group of lawmakers. The core issue revolves around the collection, retention, and potential misuse of vast amounts of private location data. Critics argue that this widespread data harvesting creates a de facto surveillance state, eroding Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. Senator Hawley, who has investigated Flock Safety's practices, cited specific incidents, including the arrest of a Florida resident who spent 13 days in jail for a crime she did not commit due to ALPR data, and a Milwaukee police officer allegedly searching his girlfriend's license plate 124 times. The stakes are high for both individual privacy and the future of law enforcement technology. If passed, the "Ban Flock Act" could significantly alter how federal agencies operate and could force state and local governments to choose between federal funding and their current ALPR programs, potentially impacting public safety operations that rely on this technology. The legislation also challenges the business model of companies like Flock Safety, which profit from selling and managing this surveillance infrastructure.

What to Watch Next

Observers should closely monitor the legislative journey of the "Ban Flock Act" through Congress. The bill's introduction by prominent progressive figures like Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders suggests it will garner significant attention, but its path to passage will likely face challenges. Key next steps include its referral to relevant committees, such as the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, where hearings may be scheduled. The response from federal agencies currently utilizing ALPRs, or those whose funding would be impacted, will be critical. Additionally, the reaction from ALPR manufacturers, particularly Flock Safety, is anticipated. Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley notably did not appear at a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on AI surveillance on September 23, despite an invitation from Senator Hawley. Any public statements or lobbying efforts from these companies will indicate their strategy to counter the proposed restrictions. The potential for amendments to the "Ban Flock Act" or the consolidation of its provisions with other ALPR-related bills, such as those from Massie or Hawley, should also be watched. The bipartisan interest in regulating ALPRs suggests that some form of legislation is likely to advance, though its final scope remains uncertain.

Bottom Line

The introduction of the "Ban Flock Act" by Representatives Ocasio-Cortez and Senators Sanders and Merkley marks a significant escalation in the legislative effort to curb the use of automated license plate readers by government entities. The bill's dual approach of prohibiting federal use and leveraging federal funding to influence state and local ALPR programs represents a direct challenge to the expanding surveillance infrastructure. While it does not impose an outright ban on the technology, its financial implications for local governments could be substantial, forcing a reevaluation of their reliance on ALPRs. The legislation underscores a growing bipartisan concern regarding privacy in the age of AI-powered surveillance, as evidenced by similar, albeit less restrictive, bills from Republican lawmakers. The debate will likely intensify as the bill moves through Congress, pitting privacy advocates against law enforcement and technology companies. The outcome will shape the future landscape of digital surveillance in the United States, determining the balance between public safety tools and individual constitutional rights, particularly the Fourth Amendment.