H.R. 10221 (119th)Bill Overview

Flock-Off Act

domestic policy
Cosponsors
Support
Lean Republican
Introduced
Sep 2, 2026
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

This bill prohibits obligation or expenditure of Federal funds for ‘‘covered camera systems’’ and related components, broadly defined to include automated license plate readers and biometric image-processing systems. Federal agencies, recipients, and subrecipients must decommission or cease operating such systems within 180 days, with limited exceptions for border security within one mile and for toll collection under narrow conditions.

Why people may split

Privacy vs. public-safety: civil liberties vs law enforcement effectiveness

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that is reasonably well-scoped in prohibitions and definitions but provides limited implementation, fiscal, and accountability scaffolding.

This bill prohibits obligation or expenditure of Federal funds for ‘‘covered camera systems’’ and related components, broadly defined to include automated license plate readers and biometric image-processing systems.

Federal agencies, recipients, and subrecipients must decommission or cease operating such systems within 180 days, with limited exceptions for border security within one mile and for toll collection under narrow conditions.

The bill also bars federal contracts, data-sharing, cloud services, and related support for these systems and allows withholding of funds to recover violations.

Passage30/100

High controversy, tangible costs, and impact on law enforcement/grantee relationships lower chances absent broad, bipartisan rewrite or major concessions.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that is reasonably well-scoped in prohibitions and definitions but provides limited implementation, fiscal, and accountability scaffolding.

Contention72/100

Privacy vs. public-safety: civil liberties vs law enforcement effectiveness

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Federal agenciesLikely burdened

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Federal agenciesReduces Federal funding for automated biometric surveillance and mass collection of identifying data.
  • Potential benefitLimits creation and sharing of centralized biometric databases accessible across agencies and vendors.
  • Potential benefitStrengthens individual privacy protections by restricting government-sponsored facial recognition and similar technolog…
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenReduces law enforcement access to automated tools for investigations and vehicle tracking.
  • Potential burdenImposes compliance and decommissioning costs on agencies and grant recipients within 180 days.
  • Potential burdenMay terminate existing contracts and reduce revenue for vendors, integrators, and cloud service providers.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Privacy vs. public-safety: civil liberties vs law enforcement effectiveness
Progressive80%

Likely to view the bill positively for protecting privacy and limiting mass surveillance and biometric tracking by government-funded systems.

Will appreciate the 180-day removal requirement and broad definitions that curb automatic face and license-plate surveillance.

May express caution about any effects on marginalized communities if public-safety tools are reduced, but overall likely to favor strong civilian privacy safeguards.

Leans supportive
Centrist50%

A centrist will weigh meaningful privacy protections against practical public-safety and administrative costs.

They will be sympathetic to limiting federally funded biometric surveillance but concerned about the 180-day decommissioning, contractual liabilities, and unfunded mandates on states and localities.

Likely to seek narrower scope, phased implementation, or targeted exceptions for law enforcement needs.

Split reaction
Conservative15%

Likely to oppose the bill as federal overreach that constrains state and local law enforcement and private-sector solutions.

Will view the prohibitions and required decommissioning as an intrusion into state policing and border-security prerogatives, and as damaging to public safety and property-rights interests.

May also object to abrupt funding withholding and contract disruption.

Likely resistant
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood30/100

High controversy, tangible costs, and impact on law enforcement/grantee relationships lower chances absent broad, bipartisan rewrite or major concessions.

Scope and complexity
52%
Scopemoderate
52%
Complexitymedium
Why this could stall
  • Estimated federal and recipient decommissioning costs absent in bill.
  • Extent of law enforcement, DHS, and state/local resistance.
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Privacy vs. public-safety: civil liberties vs law enforcement effectiveness

High controversy, tangible costs, and impact on law enforcement/grantee relationships lower chances absent broad, bipartisan rewrite or maj…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that is reasonably well-scoped in prohibitions and definitions but provides limited implementation, fiscal, and accountability scaffold…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis