Rep. Rashida Tlaib has filed a House bill that would cut off federal money for automated mass surveillance, with license plate reader maker Flock Safety as its named target. The "Get the Flock Out of Our Communities Act" was announced on October 14, 2026 at a press event in Inkster, Michigan, according to Tlaib's office. It covers license plate readers, biometric surveillance and facial recognition, the camera-plus-AI systems that have spread across U.S. cities.
We have covered the pressure on this industry before, including Flock Safety's 18 percent staff cut amid backlash. This post covers what the bill actually says, who backs it, how it differs from a competing bill, and what remains unconfirmed.
TL;DR: the bill at a glance
| Question | Answer (per Tlaib's office) |
|---|---|
| Sponsor | Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI-12) |
| Introduced | October 14, 2026 |
| Covers | Automated license plate readers, biometric surveillance, facial recognition |
| Federal funds | Barred for buying, deploying, maintaining, accessing, leasing or operating covered systems |
| Federal use | Employees and agencies barred from using covered systems or information from them |
| Removal | Required for systems deployed with federal funding |
| Data | Permanent deletion of data from federally funded covered systems |
| Courts | Data obtained in violation made inadmissible |
| Grants | State and local applicants must certify they do not operate or access covered networks |
| Cosponsors | Six House members |
| Vote scheduled? | None reported |
What does the bill say?
Per the press release, the bill has six operative pieces. It bans federal funds for purchasing, deploying, maintaining, accessing, leasing or operating covered systems. It bars federal employees and agencies from using the systems or information derived from them. It requires removal of any covered system deployed or operated with federal funding, and permanent deletion of data those systems generated. It makes data obtained in violation inadmissible in court. And it requires state and local grant applicants to certify they do not operate or access covered networks, which pushes cities to divest to stay eligible for certain federal law enforcement grants.
We have not read the bill text itself, which is linked from the release as a PDF, so the descriptions above are her office's summary. Check the text for definitions of "covered system" and any exemptions, which decide how far the bill reaches. A search result also referenced a bill number, H.R. 10807, which we could not confirm on the release page, so verify it on Congress.gov.
A green eraser removing a bead from a slab, illustrating the bill's data deletion requirement for federally funded surveillance systems
Why Inkster?
Reports say Tlaib chose Inkster because the city recently signed a 10-year contract with Flock, and the city's mayor has defended the technology as an effective crime prevention tool. That shows the real debate: local officials see a tool that solves cases, while the bill's backers see a data network with weak oversight.
Some social posts tied the announcement to a same-day case in which police used Flock cameras to find two missing children from Inkster, saying the timing drew criticism. A Fox 2 Detroit report describes the children's recovery as a separate police case, and we found nothing showing it was discussed at Tlaib's event, so treat the link as commentary rather than fact.
Who backs it, and what do they argue?
Six House colleagues cosponsor: Sylvia Garcia, Summer Lee, Ilhan Omar, Delia Ramirez, Nydia Velazquez and Bonnie Watson Coleman. The release lists 50 endorsing organizations, among them the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Fight for the Future, Demand Progress, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Freedom of the Press Foundation and several immigrant-rights groups.
The arguments, as the office presents them:
- Misuse. Tlaib says the technology has been used to stalk people, misidentify and arrest innocent people, surveil protesters and wrongfully record neighbors, and says "Flock's technology isn't making us safer."
- Data sharing. A Dearborn speaker said Flock data can be shared with agencies including ICE and CBP without control, and lacks the warrant or probable cause requirements applied to other privacy intrusions.
- Local momentum. The release says more than 200 cities and counties, including Westland and Lincoln Park, Michigan, have canceled Flock contracts, and cites Data for Progress polling that 52 percent of voters view Flock unfavorably. Those are the sponsor's cited figures, and we have not independently checked them.
Flock's side of the story is not in the release. The company has argued previously that its goal is not a surveillance state, per an earlier interview with its chief executive reported by Newsweek. We did not find a Flock response to this bill.
Dome surveillance camera with a green indicator representing automated license plate readers covered by the Tlaib bill
How is it different from the Flock-Off Act?
Tlaib's bill is not the first federal attempt. In early September, Newsweek reported on the Flock-Off Act from Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Eric Burlison (R-MO), with five cosponsors including Lauren Boebert, Paul Gosar, Ro Khanna, Chip Roy and Victoria Spartz. It would bar federal funds for license plate readers and biometric cameras, require federal agencies to remove federally funded systems, and give state and local recipients 180 days to stop operating them, while allowing toll-only readers. GovTrack gave it a 4 percent chance of enactment, an automated forecast.
A third proposal, H.R. 9800 from Rep. Tim Burchett, would bar federal agencies from using such tools for persistent or mass surveillance. Together they show unusual cross-party interest, though the details differ. Tlaib's version is broader on data deletion, court admissibility and grant certification, and, per her office, on facial recognition and biometric systems as a whole.
| Bill | Sponsors | Core mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| Get the Flock Out of Our Communities Act | Tlaib plus 6 cosponsors | Federal funding and use ban, removal, deletion, grant certification |
| Flock-Off Act | Massie, Burlison plus 5 | Funding ban for plate readers and biometric cameras, 180-day removal |
| H.R. 9800 | Burchett | Bar on federal agency persistent or mass surveillance |
Why a funding ban instead of a direct ban?
Congress has more constitutional room to attach conditions to federal money than to dictate what a city police department buys with its own budget. That is why all three proposals lean on spending: they control grants, federal procurement and federal agency use rather than prohibiting local purchases outright. The practical effect depends on how much of a city's surveillance budget comes from federal programs, which varies widely, and on whether cities decide the grants are worth more than the cameras.
For a vendor, the exposure is also indirect. A funding condition does not outlaw the product; it shrinks the pool of buyers who can afford it and adds certification paperwork for those that remain.
Why this belongs on an AI blog
Flock-style systems are increasingly AI products: computer vision reads plates, tags vehicle attributes and ties sightings together across cities. As that spreads to facial recognition and voice, law has to catch up. The same debate shows up in our coverage of ICE's plan for AI call monitoring and voice recognition, the first US city AI 911 dispatch rollout, smart glasses misuse and adversarial clothing.
For builders the practical point is that public-sector customers may soon face funding conditions around vision AI. A product sold to police or cities could become ineligible for grant-funded purchases if a bill like this passes. Teams building such tools should be ready to document retention periods, access logs and sharing rules.
Columns forming a small government building with a green flag, representing Congress considering surveillance legislation
What is confirmed and what is not
Confirmed from the sponsor's office: the bill exists, was announced October 14, its provisions, its six cosponsors and endorsers.
Reported but not independently confirmed: the bill number, the committee referrals (reports say Oversight and Judiciary), the 10-year Inkster contract, and the cited cancellation and polling figures.
Not known: whether any committee will schedule a hearing, Flock's response, and whether the bill text has definitions that would exempt common uses such as toll readers.
What residents and city staff can do
If your city uses plate readers or facial recognition, you can request the contract, retention period and sharing agreements through public records, check whether the system is paid with federal grants, and ask the council what audit logs exist. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and similar groups publish guides for this. For organizations that deploy AI agents internally, the equivalent control is to check what an agent can access before it acts. AgentBeam is the agent security platform from the explainx.ai team that stops AI agents before they take dangerous actions.
What to watch next
- Committee action. Referral to Oversight and Judiciary is the first gate; a hearing would be a signal.
- Bill text. The definitions will show whether toll readers and body-camera systems are covered.
- Flock's response. The company has not, in the sources we found, addressed this bill.
- City votes. More councils canceling contracts would build the argument the sponsor makes.
- The bipartisan track. Whether the Massie and Burlison bill moves.
We will add an update when the text, a number, or a hearing is confirmed.
Related reading
- Flock Safety cuts 18 percent of staff
- ICE AI detainee call monitoring
- New Orleans AI 911 dispatch
- Smart glasses misuse and bans
- Digital camouflage and adversarial clothing
- Kaiser nurses and AI workplace surveillance
Legislative details are accurate as of October 15, 2026 and may change as the bill moves.