List of Republicans Trying to Crack Down on Flock Cameras

Some Republican lawmakers are pushing back against the spread of Flock Safety cameras and other automated license plate reader (ALPR) systems, arguing that the technology has evolved into a form of mass surveillance that threatens Americans' privacy and Fourth Amendment rights. The movement, which was once largely confined to civil-liberties advocates and libertarian-leaning lawmakers, has gained momentum in recent months as Flock cameras have proliferated across the country. The Atlanta-based company's network has expanded into thousands of police departments and communities, making it one of the largest vehicle-monitoring systems in America. Critics say that growth has outpaced the safeguards needed to prevent government overreach, while supporters contend the cameras have become an indispensable crime-fighting tool and that there are measures in place to protect data. At the center of the Republican opposition are Representative Tim Burchett of Tennessee and Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who have both proposed federal legislation aimed at curbing the deployment or funding of Flock cameras. They are joined by a broader coalition of GOP lawmakers concerned about government surveillance.
Perry posted on his Facebook page, "Flock and Flock-like cameras track where law-abiding people go, who they visit, and how they live - all without a warrant. I attempted to stop this with an amendment, which unfortunately failed recently in Committee; that's not the end of this, though. The mass surveillance of the American People must end. Call your legislators. STOP THE FLOCK."
Supporters say the technology has helped recover stolen vehicles, identify suspects, investigate violent crimes and locate missing persons. Police departments that use the system frequently cite significant investigative successes. In Tennessee, for example, east of Nashville on I-40, officials in Mt. Juliet said their Flock system helped lead to hundreds of non-resident arrests during the first half of 2026. FlockHopper, which tracks Flock cameras across the nation, says there are 119 Flock cameras in the area of Mt. Juliet.
Flock argues that its technology gives law enforcement a more efficient way to solve crimes and share information across jurisdictional boundaries. The company says it has assisted in more than a million investigations and has played a role in thousands of missing-person cases.
As crime-fighting tools, license plate readers are not new. What has changed is the scale. Modern cloud-based systems allow agencies to share information nationwide and search vast databases containing billions of vehicle sightings, dramatically expanding the reach of local camera networks.
Opponents of Flock cameras argue the systems represent a modern Fourth Amendment challenge, allowing police to compile long-term records of where people drive, worship, seek medical care, or attend political events without individualized suspicion. Privacy advocates say the constitutional issue is not a single camera scan but the creation of a vast, searchable database of vehicle movements, which they view as a form of mass surveillance. Law enforcement agencies and Flock maintain that the cameras capture information visible from public roadways and are used to investigate crimes and locate wanted suspects.
Burchett has become one of the most outspoken critics. Earlier this month, the Tennessee Republican introduced the Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act, legislation that would prohibit federal agencies from purchasing, operating or accessing automated surveillance technologies, including license plate readers such as Flock cameras. The measure would also prevent state and local governments from using federal funding to purchase similar systems. Burchett argues that Americans should not have to sacrifice constitutional rights in exchange for public safety.
So far, the bill has not gotten any additional cosponsors, according to Congressional records reviewed by Newsweek. It's waiting for a vote in the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Massie has taken a similar stance. The Kentucky Republican recently announced plans to introduce legislation that would withhold federal funding from jurisdictions that deploy Flock cameras. He has repeatedly argued that the systems create a surveillance network that overwhelmingly captures data from law-abiding citizens rather than criminals.
Other Republicans have pursued parallel efforts. Perry worked with Democratic Representative Jesús "Chuy" García on a bipartisan amendment that would have dramatically restricted the use of automated license plate readers by governments receiving federal highway funding. The proposal would have allowed the technology only for toll collection purposes. Although the amendment did not advance, it demonstrated bipartisan concern over expanding surveillance networks.
Self's PRIVACY Act would similarly require federal authorities to obtain warrants before accessing data collected through Flock cameras and other surveillance systems. Crane and Clyde signed on as original cosponsors.
The scale of Flock's network has become one of the main drivers of concern among privacy advocates. There are up to 100,000 cameras nationwide, according to the ACLU.
The network's growth has been accompanied by resistance in some communities. Municipalities have either canceled or declined contracts with Flock after concerns emerged regarding data sharing, privacy protections and access by outside agencies. At the same time, many jurisdictions continue to expand deployments, arguing that the benefits outweigh the risks.
For now, the battle over Flock cameras has become part of a broader ideological divide inside the Republican Party. One side sees the technology as a valuable law-enforcement tool. The other increasingly views it as the next frontier in warrantless government surveillance. As the number of cameras continues to rise, so too does the political pressure from lawmakers determined to rein them in.