Flock Cameras Face Rare Bipartisan Backlash Across US
There are few issues that unite Republicans and Democrats these days, but opposition to Flock surveillance cameras is increasingly becoming one of them. As the 2026 midterm elections approach, elected officials and candidates from across the political spectrum are speaking out against the AI-powered license plate readers that have become ubiquitous on American roads.
According to NPR, the backlash has reached the highest levels of state government. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced plans to revoke permits for license plate readers on state highways, with the Florida Department of Transportation issuing a memo requiring all Flock cameras within state highway rights-of-way to be removed within 30 days. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott froze state spending on Flock cameras in late August, directing state agencies to stop purchasing Flock products. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro said he would welcome bipartisan legislation to ban Flock cameras across the state, calling them “not in the public interest.”
A Technology Under Scrutiny
Flock Safety, founded in 2017 and headquartered in Atlanta, produces automated license plate readers (ALPRs) that photograph the rear of every passing vehicle. The cameras use AI to read license plates and identify vehicle characteristics, uploading data to a searchable national database shared across more than 5,000 law enforcement agencies in 49 states. Approximately 120,000 Flock cameras conduct roughly 2 billion license plate scans per month, according to The Guardian.
The company’s rapid growth — fueled by $950 million in venture funding and a $7.5 billion valuation — has made its cameras a familiar sight on poles and traffic lights across the country. But that visibility has also made Flock the face of a broader debate about mass surveillance in America.
Why the Backlash Now?
Several converging factors have turned public opinion against Flock cameras in 2026. A Washington Post investigation found at least 50 law enforcement officers who had been charged with or accused of misusing license plate reader systems, with 26 cases involving officers spying on women in their lives — ex-partners and romantic interests. 404 Media has documented numerous cases of officers arrested for using Flock to stalk people.
Concerns have also emerged over the technology’s use in tracking people seeking abortions, with Texas deputies using Flock data to investigate a woman suspected of traveling for the procedure. The network has also been utilized by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), raising alarms among immigrant communities and civil liberties advocates.
Conservatives have raised their own concerns, warning that cameras placed near gun shops could create a national gun registry. Some gun stores have begun removing Flock cameras due to customer concerns.
“In my 20-plus years at the ACLU, I’ve never really seen such a grassroots uprising against surveillance technology like this,” Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the ACLU, told The Guardian. “On the left, there’s a historical memory of law enforcement spying on and interfering with advocates for social change. On the right, there’s a long tradition of ‘don’t tread on me’ — keep the government out of my life, keep it from looking over my shoulder.”
Political Action at Every Level
The political response has been swift and bipartisan. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, launched an investigation into Flock Safety’s “collection, retention, and dissemination” of data. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has promised to introduce legislation to “stop Flock and AI mass surveillance.” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) is cosponsoring a bill with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) to prevent federal funds from being used to purchase Flock cameras.
ABC News reports that the issue has become a campaign flashpoint in key races. In Michigan, Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is running ads against Republican opponent Mike Rogers over Flock cameras. In Wisconsin, both gubernatorial candidates — Democrat David Crowley and Republican Tom Tiffany — have voiced opposition. In Ohio, both Amy Acton (D) and Vivek Ramaswamy (R) have expressed concerns about the surveillance network.
Ramaswamy, the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Ohio, warned about the trajectory of the technology, telling Signal Ohio that he does not want to see “an authoritarian surveillance state that ultimately threatens what this country was built on.”
Grassroots Resistance and Vandalism
The political backlash reflects broader public discontent. More than 100 jurisdictions have canceled their Flock contracts or deactivated cameras, according to the advocacy group DeFlock and the non-profit Institute for Justice. Recent polling from Data for Progress shows more Americans now disapprove of Flock cameras than approve of them.
Some opponents have taken more drastic measures. According to an NPR review, Flock cameras have been vandalized in at least 36 states — stolen, sawed down, crashed into, covered in paint and stickers, and even shot at. DeFlock’s National Week of Action in August registered more than 25,000 people for events around the country.
Flock CEO Garrett Langley has defended the technology, saying the company is transparent about its practices and that cities control how long data is stored and who it’s shared with. In response to the backlash, Flock recently announced changes including reducing data retention periods and cutting off access to officers who appear to be misusing the tool.
What’s Next for Flock and Its Critics
The growing opposition has created opportunities for competitors. Cities including Denver and Longmont, Colorado have signed contracts with Flock competitor Axon, whose CEO told investors that “a significant number of agencies want to come over to Axon and convert from existing license plate readers,” as NPR reported.
But privacy experts warn that switching vendors doesn’t address the underlying concerns. “You’re just replacing one color of camera for another,” said Matthew Guariglia of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Those dangers you were concerned about are still going to be there.”
President Trump said on August 18 that he was “studying” the Flock camera issue and that the administration would “have an answer as to our views on it over the next couple of weeks.”
Woodrow Hartzog, a professor of law and computer science at Boston University, told The Guardian that the pushback represents a turning point in how Americans view surveillance technology. “The pushback we’re seeing against Flock cameras is one of the most vivid illustrations I can think of that surveillance is not inevitable — that these tools aren’t inevitable,” he said. “It’s up to all of us to stop them.”
As the midterm elections approach and state and federal investigations continue, the debate over Flock cameras appears far from settled. What began as a niche privacy concern has evolved into a rare bipartisan issue — one that could reshape how law enforcement surveillance technology is deployed across the United States for years to come.