Massie proposes bill to cut federal funds for cities using flock cameras as Louisville officials defend public-safety technology

U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, said he plans to introduce a federal bill aimed at limiting municipal use of “flock” cameras, technology he has argued can enable intrusive surveillance. The proposal would target cities that employ the systems by cutting off federal funding tied to their use, according to a report by WLKY published July 29.

Massie’s plan, as described in the report, is focused on local deployment of camera systems that use network-connected sensors and automated monitoring. The bill framework would condition or reduce federal support for cities that are using the technology, setting up a direct policy clash between lawmakers seeking tighter limits and local officials who argue the systems serve practical public-safety functions.

WLKY reported that some Kentucky local leaders pushed back on the idea that the cameras should be broadly restricted. Louisville officials and other local voices defended flock cameras as a tool they say can help respond to incidents faster, support investigations, and address violent crime and public safety needs.

In the reporting, local officials argued that the cameras are already used under local policies and oversight and that they can provide operational benefits for police and emergency response. They said the technology can offer an additional layer of information for determining what occurred and identifying suspects, rather than relying only on slower investigative methods after a crime has happened.

The report also described Massie’s stated concern about how such systems could be used, particularly the risk of normalizing persistent monitoring. Massie’s approach, as characterized by WLKY, would use federal funding leverage rather than requiring a state law change, shifting the debate to federal rules governing local government eligibility for certain funds.

The measure is still at the proposal stage, with Massie saying he intends to introduce the bill. If it advances through Congress, the legislation would likely draw further scrutiny about how it defines “flock” cameras, what federal programs could be affected, and what safeguards or exceptions would apply to cities that rely on the technology for investigations.

For local governments, the issue is also likely to turn on practical compliance. Officials defending the cameras suggested they view the systems as part of their public-safety toolkit, and the funding question could force cities to decide whether to change policies, seek exemptions, or adjust how they deploy and document the technology.

The debate over automated surveillance in Kentucky is now set to move from local operations to federal legislation, with supporters and critics of the cameras both pressing their case on public safety, government oversight, and the scope of federal authority over city police technology decisions.