From the Public Safety edition of October 18, 2026
Rep. Tlaib’s Get the Flock Out of Our Communities Act would bar federal funds for ALPR, biometric and facial recognition systems and require state and local grant applicants to certify non-use
Office of U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI-12), U.S. House of Representatives · Policing / federal legislation on automated surveillance funding and grant conditions · United States (federal; affects state and local grant recipients)
- Publisher
- Office of Rep. Rashida Tlaib
- Original publication
- Oct 14, 2026
- Source retrieved
- 2026-10-19
- Event date
- 2026-10-14
What happened
The official release says the bill would prohibit federal funds for any government entity to purchase, deploy, maintain, access, lease or operate automated mass surveillance systems, including ALPRs, biometric surveillance and facial recognition; bar federal agencies from using such systems or derived information; require removal of federally funded systems and permanent deletion of their data; make data obtained in violation inadmissible; and require state and local applicants for certain federal law enforcement grants to certify they do not operate or access such networks. It has six Democratic cosponsors and 50 endorsing organizations.
Why it matters
Even at introduction, the grant-certification lever is the provision state and local agencies should track: it would tie eligibility for certain federal law enforcement grants to divesting ALPR and facial recognition, including access to others’ networks. Agencies budgeting multi-year ALPR or real-time crime center contracts face growing federal policy uncertainty.
Evidence and measured results
Opened the official press release listing bill provisions, cosponsors and endorsers. Claims such as "over 200 cities and counties" cancelling Flock and a 52% unfavorable poll are the sponsor’s advocacy statements and are not independently verified here. Bill text was not opened.
Limitations and uncertainty
Advocacy press release; bill at introduction stage with low near-term passage likelihood; definitions of "automated mass surveillance system" are broad and may change.
Put this evidence to work
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation, grounded in this source. Enriched 2026-10-19; this does not change the original publication date. Each role follows the same checklist so takeaways compare across sources.
Sales
Role takeaway
- Customer problem
- Agencies with grant-funded surveillance technology face uncertain federal conditions that could force removal or jeopardize grants.
- Stakeholders
- Grant administrator
- Police chief
- City or county finance director
- City attorney
- State administering agency
- Discovery questions
- Which surveillance systems were bought or maintained with federal grants?
- Do you access other agencies’ ALPR networks?
- Do contracts allow termination and certified data deletion?
- Which upcoming grant applications could be affected?
- Value hypothesis
- Mapping federal funding exposure now lets agencies plan contract terms and budgets without overreacting to an introduced bill.
- Potential engagement
- 2–3 week federal funding exposure and contract-exit readiness review for surveillance systems.
- Unsupported claims
- That the bill will pass
- That over 200 jurisdictions cancelled Flock (sponsor claim, unverified)
- That ALPR is ineffective
Pre-sales engineering
Role takeaway
- Fit
- Agencies operating ALPR, facial recognition or real-time crime centers with any federal funding.
- Architecture and integration
- Link asset inventory to funding source; document data stores, sharing and access to external networks per system.
- Prerequisites
- Grant award records
- Asset inventory
- Vendor data-deletion capabilities
- Constraints
- Broad statutory definitions
- Mixed-funding systems
- Vendor-held data copies
- Security
- Ensure certified deletion processes and logs exist for vendor-hosted surveillance data.
- Proof of value
- Proposed: produce funding-to-system map for all surveillance assets
- Proposed: test vendor certified-deletion process on non-production data
Delivery
Role takeaway
- Work
- Build exposure register, review contracts for exit and deletion terms, and brief officials.
- Dependencies
- Grant records
- Contract access
- Legal review
- Ownership
- Grant administration office with police technology lead
- Skills and adoption
- Brief grant and procurement staff on tracking federal surveillance bills.
- Governance checkpoints
- Legal review of bill definitions
- Pre-application grant review
- Annual surveillance funding report
- Acceptance criteria
- Proposed: exposure register covers 100% of surveillance assets
- Proposed: every surveillance contract reviewed for exit and deletion terms
- Risks
- Overreaction to low-probability bill
- Federal definitions change in committee
- Loss of grant-funded capability
Implementation considerations
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation across the operating dimensions a public-sector buyer must settle before this evidence becomes a design. Each note answers the question under its heading for this specific source.
Architecture and integration
What must connect, and where does the AI sit in the workflow?
Agencies whose ALPR, facial recognition or real-time crime center stacks were bought with federal grants should map funding sources per component, since removal and deletion obligations would attach to federally funded systems.
Governance
Who approves, reviews and stays accountable for outcomes?
Introduced bill referred to committees; passage is uncertain. Its inadmissibility clause would affect prosecutors relying on derived data.
Security and privacy
What data, permissions and controls need testing?
Sponsor cites stalking, misidentification, protest surveillance and data sharing with federal immigration agencies as harms.
Accessibility and workforce
Who is affected, and what skills or accommodations follow?
Grant-funded positions and programs could be affected if certification conditions were enacted.
Procurement
What should contracts, pricing and exit terms secure?
Include termination-for-convenience and data-deletion terms in surveillance contracts given federal funding risk.
Operating model
Which teams own the service once it runs?
Would shift compliance burden to grant administrators and state administering agencies.
Publication history
- 2026-10-18Public Safety · Issue 407 resources
Stable resource ID: tlaib-get-the-flock-out-act-federal-grant-certification-20261014