Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY-4) introduced H.R. 10221, the Flock-Off Act, on September 2, 2026, targeting the federal grants that have financed the spread of networked surveillance cameras across American cities.
The bill prohibits federal funds from being used to purchase, install, maintain, operate, or upgrade automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and biometric surveillance cameras. “Covered camera systems” is defined broadly to include fixed, mobile, and portable cameras along with associated hardware, software, cloud services, and data-sharing arrangements that capture, process, or store vehicle or individual images.
Biometric data under the bill includes facial recognition, voiceprints, iris and retinal scans, fingerprints, and gait recognition.
Federal agencies and grant recipients would have 180 days after enactment to decommission federally funded systems and terminate related agreements. Agencies must withhold further funds from any recipient that misuses federal money on covered systems until that recipient reimburses the U.S. Treasury.
Two narrow exceptions survive the restriction: federal funding remains permitted for cameras deployed within one mile of the northern or southern U.S. borders for detecting unlawful entry, human trafficking, or drug smuggling, and for ALPRs used solely to collect or enforce tolls.
Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) is co-lead sponsor. Cosponsors include Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Victoria Spartz (R-IN), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), and Chip Roy (R-TX), giving the bill a limited bipartisan profile notable for a surveillance-restriction measure.
What the Bill Takes Aim At
The legislation targets the federal funding pipeline that enabled Flock Safety’s cloud-connected camera networks to spread across U.S. cities, not the cameras themselves.
Massie framed the legislation in stark terms in his official press release.
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. Thomas Massie, official press release announcing H.R. 10221
The bill stops short of banning ALPR deployments outright. “If a city or county wants to have Flock cameras, they can do it, but my bill says we’re not going to charge the American taxpayer for that,” Massie said in a television interview aired September 2.
At the center of the legislation sits Flock Safety, an Atlanta-based company that sells cloud-connected ALPR networks to police departments and municipalities. Those systems are frequently purchased using federal security grants, making federal funding the lever Massie targets rather than the cameras themselves.
Kentucky Backlash Shaped the Bill’s Timing
A wave of local opposition in Massie’s home state, including a canceled pilot program and dozens of vandalism incidents, provided the immediate political backdrop for the bill.
The legislation grew directly out of events in Kentucky. Newport terminated its Flock pilot program on July 14 after residents raised privacy concerns at a town hall, and Massie telegraphed his intent to sponsor a funding-restriction bill in a July 25 social media post that followed Newport’s decision.
Louisville police records document at least two dozen vandalism and theft incidents targeting Flock cameras, with most occurring in July and early August 2026. An opinion piece cited in Kentucky coverage detailed a Shively police officer’s alleged misuse of Flock camera access to track individuals, a concern Massie has referenced publicly as evidence of insufficient access controls; that allegation originates from opinion commentary rather than a primary factual record. Direct law enforcement counterarguments on the bill’s public safety implications remain limited in available reporting.
H.R. 10221 has been referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, where its prospects are uncertain. Even without advancing further, the bill documents a bipartisan pressure point on federally subsidized surveillance infrastructure and may prompt similar scrutiny at the state level.
