Tlaib Bill Would Restrict Federal Support for AI Surveillance Systems

Rep. Rashida Tlaib introduced the proposed Get the Flock Out of Our Communities Act, a federal policy measure targeting the use and funding of covered AI-enabled mass-surveillance systems. The bill remains at the introduced stage and has been referred to two committees of the U.S. House of Representatives: the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on the Judiciary. It is therefore a proposal, not an enacted law, an active procurement solicitation, or a current compliance requirement. Its path through committee and any subsequent legislative action will determine whether the proposed restrictions become binding.

The measure would restrict federal agencies’ use of covered surveillance systems and could make certain Byrne and COPS grants conditional on local governments ending their use of those systems and removing collected data. If enacted, the bill would require removal of federally funded systems within 30 days and deletion of specified data within seven days. Those deadlines could have practical implications for agencies managing system inventories, data stores, vendor relationships, and grant-funded deployments. The source information does not establish that every AI-enabled surveillance product would be covered, nor does it identify the precise systems or data held by any particular municipality.

For state and local procurement teams, the proposal is a reason to map how surveillance technology is funded and governed before a grant or contract decision becomes urgent. Agencies can review whether covered systems were purchased, maintained, or expanded with federal funds, including funds connected to Byrne or COPS programs, and consider how a grant condition might affect future plans or existing deployments. The bill’s possible requirements could also make contract language about termination, system removal, data deletion, retention, and cooperation with government directives more consequential. These are prudent planning considerations—not obligations imposed by the bill while it remains un enacted.

The City of Inkster, Michigan, illustrates the potential long-term contracting question. Inkster recently signed a 10-year license-plate-reader contract with Flock Safety and is planning a technology expansion. That example highlights how a long-duration municipal agreement could face uncertainty if federal grant eligibility or permitted system use changes. However, the signal does not establish that Inkster’s contract uses federal funding, that its system is necessarily covered by the bill, or that the city would have to terminate or modify the agreement. Tlaib described the federal funding approach this way: “I can't sign these contracts, right? But I can basically be able to control what law enforcement agencies can use federal funds for, and that's what we do in this bill.” For vendors and customers, the immediate procurement takeaway is to distinguish proposed policy risk from present legal requirements while evaluating funding dependencies and contract flexibility.

• Legislative status: The Get the Flock Out of Our Communities Act is introduced legislation referred to two House committees; it is not enacted.
• Proposed federal restriction: The bill would limit federal agencies’ use of covered AI-enabled mass-surveillance systems.
• Potential grant conditions: Certain Byrne and COPS grants could be conditioned on local governments ending use of covered systems and removing collected data.
• Proposed timelines: If enacted, federally funded systems would have to be removed within 30 days, with specified data deleted within seven days.
• Local procurement action: Inventory surveillance systems and identify whether federal funding supported acquisition, maintenance, or planned expansion.
• Contracting action: Review termination, removal, retention, and deletion terms for flexibility if grant conditions or applicable law change.
• Vendor exposure: Flock Safety and other law-enforcement technology contractors can assess customer agreements and data-retention practices against the proposal, without treating it as an active requirement.
• Inkster example: The city’s 10-year Flock license-plate-reader agreement and planned expansion illustrate possible long-term exposure; federal funding of the contract has not been established.
• Key distinction: The bill does not create a current procurement opportunity or compliance mandate unless enacted and applicable to a covered system or funding arrangement.