Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders introduced legislation Friday to block federal use of Flock-style license plate cameras, a fight Republicans began months earlier.

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democratic Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, and independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders rolled out the Ban Flock Act to cut off federal purchase, use, and funding of automated license plate readers. The Daily Caller reported the measure targets systems built by companies such as Flock Safety and aims to stop Washington from feeding a growing web of vehicle tracking.

The bill does not outlaw the cameras nationwide. It hits the federal spigot, and it threatens grant money that state and local agencies rely on if they keep using the technology.

Sanders framed the stakes in blunt terms on X the same day the push went public.

"We cannot allow America to become a surveillance state where AI oligarchs profit by giving the government the power to track our every movement. That is why [@AOC][@JeffMerkley] and I are introducing the BAN FLOCK Act to block federal funding for automatic license plate readers."

Ocasio-Cortez, a leading progressive voice whose 2028 primary standing keeps climbing on the left, tied the bill to privacy and corporate power in a statement from her office.

"Across the country, Big Tech companies like Flock Safety have built a mass surveillance system to harvest Americans’ private and personal data without their consent. AI-powered cameras are keeping track of our every move and weaponizing this data against working people to make record profits. The widespread integration of this technology into American society is unconscionable. I am proud to introduce the Ban Flock Act with Senator Sanders to enforce our constitutional right to privacy and protect Americans from both corporate and government surveillance."

Federal cash becomes the pressure point

As described in the bill summary tied to Ocasio-Cortez’s office, the Ban Flock Act would bar the federal government from buying, using, or possessing an automated license plate reader. It would also block federal access to that data and ban the use of federal funds to buy the systems.

State and local governments that keep using the readers, or that contract with ALPR firms, would lose federal assistance from the Justice Department, the Transportation Department, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Homeland Security. Local agencies could still spend local tax dollars. The federal purse would close.

Federal officials who used the technology could face retraining, suspension, termination, or another penalty. The measure would also let Americans sue the federal government over rights violations tied to ALPR use. One carve-out remains: systems used only to enforce toll payments.

Sanders went further in a longer statement, saying Flock is “eviscerating the very notion of privacy” with tens of thousands of cameras and warning that trips to the doctor or school drop-offs are already being logged.

Republicans got there first

No lawmaker has introduced a bill to ban the cameras outright. Several Republicans already moved to restrict federal involvement and tighten rules months before Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders joined the fight.

In July, Tennessee Rep. Tim Burchett introduced the Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act. It would stop federal agencies from buying or using ALPRs while still allowing state and local use if the gear is not paid for with federal funds. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie filed The Flock-Off Act to bar federal money for purchase, installation, or operation, while leaving locally funded networks in place.

Massie and Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert also introduced the Surveillance Accountability Act in April. That bill would require a warrant before ALPRs are used to track citizens, limit warrantless facial-recognition scanning in public by federal and local law enforcement, restrict ALPR use including Flock systems, and let private citizens sue government employees over Fourth Amendment violations. Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna said in July she planned a ban bill of her own; it had not been introduced as of the Daily Caller account.

Those earlier Republican bills matter because they treat the core problem as government power and weak safeguards, not a branding war with “Big Tech.” For readers tracking progressive politics, Ocasio-Cortez’s turn to this issue also fits a broader pattern of jockeying to lead Bernie Sanders’ movement and set the party’s direction.

Hawley’s probe put real abuses on the table

Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley introduced the Stop Flock Abuse Act on Wednesday, according to the same report. His bill would bar local governments from selling or sharing driver data with non-governmental third parties, shield that data from FOIA-style releases and outside vendors, keep the data inside the United States, require an audit log of searches, and permanently delete driver data after ten days.

Hawley has been investigating Flock’s collection, retention, and sharing practices. He has cited ugly examples: a Milwaukee police officer who allegedly ran his girlfriend’s plate 124 times, and a Florida resident who spent 13 days in jail for a crime she did not commit.

He invited five technology CEOs, including Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley, to testify September 23 before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism. Not one of the five showed up.

That no-show undercuts any claim that the industry is eager for sunlight. It also undercuts the idea that only progressive Democrats noticed the risk. Hawley’s record, like Massie’s and Burchett’s, put warrant standards, data deletion, and federal funding limits on the table while Ocasio-Cortez was still building her national brand with the party’s activist left, including outside figures now lining up behind her 2028 ambitions.

Same cameras, different club

The Ban Flock Act is tougher on localities than several GOP drafts because it conditions major federal grant streams on dropping ALPR use or ALPR contracts. Burchett’s and Massie’s approaches wall off federal purchase and federal dollars while leaving room for local funding choices. Ocasio-Cortez, Merkley, and Sanders reach deeper into state and city budgets through Justice, Transportation, HHS, HUD, and DHS money.

That difference is the policy heart of the fight. Automated readers can help recover stolen cars and find fugitives. They can also enable fishing expeditions, weak data controls, and catastrophic errors when a plate read goes wrong. The Florida jailing and Milwaukee search history Hawley flagged are not abstract privacy theory. They are concrete failures of process and oversight.

Conservative voters who want secure streets still have no duty to accept a permanent, lightly audited tracking grid. Constitutional order means warrants, limits, deletion rules, and real penalties when officials abuse tools. It does not mean a blank check for every vendor promising AI magic.

Ocasio-Cortez remains a polarizing figure on the right for reasons that stretch far beyond cameras, from party power struggles to episodes such as the furor after she was caught on camera at a Ground Zero ceremony. Critics who call her wing of the party a radical driver of Democratic politics, including voices like Sen. Rick Scott, will not miss the irony of that same wing now quoting the Fourth Amendment.

Still, the substance has to be judged on the text. A federal ban on buying and running these systems, paired with a private right to sue, is a serious lever. So is stripping grant access from jurisdictions that keep the contracts. Whether that club is the right size is a fair fight in Congress. Pretending the underlying surveillance problem is imaginary is not.

Sanders’ “surveillance state” line will ring familiar to anyone who has watched mission creep in law enforcement tech. The test for both parties is simple: enforce the same limits when the data is useful to your side, not only when a camera company makes a convenient villain.

Privacy rights do not belong to one caucus, and Americans should judge these bills by the restraints they actually impose, not by who holds the press conference.