President Trump said Sunday that he supports Flock cameras because of their value to law enforcement, while acknowledging the privacy concerns that have made the systems a national political issue.

The answer came aboard Air Force One as the president returned from Ireland.

Asked whether he would back the cameras, Trump said, “I sort of like ’em because of that, because of law enforcement.” He noted that some people view the technology as an infringement, then added: “But I like them.”

Here is the exchange:

The brief answer is President Trump’s clearest statement to date on the fast-growing network of automated license plate readers.

In August, Trump said the administration was studying the issue and would provide its position later. His latest remarks establish his personal view, but he did not announce a new federal policy or address questions about warrants, data retention or government funding.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Associated Press reported that Flock cameras operate in roughly 6,000 communities across every state except Alaska. The systems photograph passing vehicles and convert the images into searchable records that can include license plates, location, time and vehicle characteristics.

Police agencies use the data to investigate stolen vehicles, missing-person cases and other crimes. Flock and law-enforcement supporters say that access can help investigators identify vehicles and develop leads quickly.

Opponents argue that the same network can allow agencies to reconstruct people’s movements without individualized suspicion. The dispute has drawn lawmakers and local officials from both parties, with some communities limiting or ending their contracts.

The AP described the cameras as an emerging midterm campaign issue tied to a wider public debate over artificial intelligence and the power of technology companies. Candidates in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida have called for restrictions or bans, while police officials continue to defend the systems as an investigative tool.

Another report from the Air Force One exchange placed Trump’s answer in that broader controversy:

The political split is especially visible among Republicans.

Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky introduced H.R. 10221, called the Flock-Off Act, with Rep. Eric Burlison of Missouri.

Massie’s office says the bill would prohibit federal money from being used to buy, install, maintain, operate or upgrade automated license plate readers and biometric surveillance cameras. The release identifies Massie and Burlison as the lead sponsors and says the proposal responds to concerns about the expansion of government surveillance.

The proposal would restrict federal funding rather than impose a nationwide ban on state or local purchases.

ADVERTISEMENT

Massie said federal taxpayers should not be required to finance surveillance systems used by cities and police departments.

The bill’s original cosponsors span both parties, including Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California and Republican Reps. Victoria Spartz of Indiana, Paul Gosar of Arizona, Chip Roy of Texas and Lauren Boebert of Colorado.

The measure covers more than one company’s products. Its text applies to automated license plate readers and biometric surveillance cameras generally, including the purchase, installation, operation, maintenance and upgrading of those systems with federal money.

That distinction leaves state and local governments free to make their own decisions with non-federal funds if the proposal becomes law.

The legislation was introduced on September 2 and has not been described by its sponsors as a prohibition on privately funded residential or business cameras. Its immediate effect would be on federal grants and other federal spending used to support government surveillance systems.

Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri has opened a separate investigation through the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism.

Hawley’s office says he asked Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley for documents about who can access the data, where cameras are placed, how information is retained and shared, and what safeguards apply when officers misuse the system.

Hawley described the company’s internal policies as the practical protection covering data generated about hundreds of millions of Americans.

His letter sought internal policies, contracts, camera-location information, data-sharing arrangements and records connected to unauthorized searches. It also asked the company to identify government agencies with access to its system and explain how long different kinds of records are kept.

ADVERTISEMENT

The inquiry is oversight, not a finding that Flock or any particular agency violated the law. Hawley asked the company to provide the requested material by September 8.

Flock has responded to the broader scrutiny by changing parts of its platform.

The company says agencies must attach a criminal case number to searches and that automated monitoring is used to identify unusual activity. It also says law-enforcement customers own and control their data and decide whether to share it with other agencies.

Flock’s published retention guidance says seven days is the default for license-plate-reader data, while actual retention periods can vary based on local policy, law and customer contracts.

The company says its license-plate readers do not use facial recognition, that data-sharing relationships are opt-in, and that customer searches are logged. It also says its cameras produce point-in-time vehicle records rather than continuous video and that hotlist alerts should be verified by an officer before enforcement action.

Flock announced the additional controls after reports of unauthorized police searches and wrongful stops intensified scrutiny of the network. The company has argued that tighter access rules and shorter default retention can protect privacy without removing a tool used in serious investigations.

The announcement did not end the opposition. One response to Trump’s remarks reflected the resistance among some voters on the political right:

The central question remains whether the investigative value of a searchable national camera network can be separated from the risk of broad, warrantless movement surveillance.

President Trump’s answer places him on the side of keeping the technology available to law enforcement. The legislative and oversight fights over how it may be funded, searched and controlled are still unresolved.

ADVERTISEMENT

File photo: President Trump participates in a White House drug-pricing announcement on August 31, 2026. Official White House photo by Molly Riley.

The image has been cropped and color-enhanced.

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.

 

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.