IPVM verified that a bipartisan amendment that would have effectively blocked police LPR programs nationwide was killed at a House committee markup on May 21, 2026. WIRED first reported on May 20, 2026, that the amendment would be introduced. IPVM reviewed committee markup records to confirm the outcome and investigated the lobbying connections behind its failure.

In this report, we examine the amendments, the legislators involved, the hearing's outcome, and Flock's lobbying connection to one of the sponsors.

Executive Summary

The quiet failure of Amendment 221 offers two notable takeaways. First, the amendment's existence at all marks an escalation in the political backlash against Flock. A federal spending-power ban that would have effectively ended Flock's law enforcement business nationwide reached the agenda of a major House committee, cosponsored by lawmakers from opposite ends of the political spectrum. That the amendment died quietly does not erase what its introduction signals: opposition to police LPR programs is reaching higher levels of the political agenda, and Flock is increasingly at the center of it.

Second, the outcome is a window into the potential reach of Flock's rapidly expanding lobbying operation: one of the company's registered lobbyists previously served as chief of staff to the amendment's Democratic co-sponsor, who co-sponsored the amendment but said nothing to advance it during the 14-hour hearing.

That the amendment died quietly does not erase what its introduction signals: opposition to police LPR programs is reaching higher levels of the political agenda, and Flock is increasingly at the center of it.

What Happened

The amendment, covered in WIRED's May 20, 2026, report, was submitted as Amendment 221 by Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) and Rep. Jesús García (D-IL) for the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's markup of the $580 billion dollars BUILD America 250 Act. Both committee chairman Sam Graves (R-MO) and ranking member Rick Larsen (D-WA) voted against it.

Amendment 221 (below) ran a single sentence: any recipient of Title 23 federal highway funding, which covers roughly a quarter of all public road mileage and distributes ~$53-$57 billion dollars annually to states, could use LPR cameras for tolling only. Individual states receive anywhere from hundreds of millions of dollars to more than $5 billion dollars per year under the program. Because nearly every government entity accepts Title 23 money, the amendment would have effectively required the removal of police LPR systems nationwide. While the amendment only references Perry as a sponsor, García's office confirmed to IPVM that he also backed the measure.

Rather than waiting for courts to resolve whether mass LPR scanning violates the Fourth Amendment, the amendment used Congress's power to attach conditions to federal spending, the same mechanism used to set national drinking age and DUI standards. States can decline the money, but historically almost none do. To be clear, the amendment was not about funding for Flock — it was about the federal highway funding that states themselves would have to forgo if they continued using LPR cameras for policing. That is a political sledgehammer.

Potential Impact On Flock

For Flock, the amendment would have been existential to its core law enforcement business. Flock operates the country's largest LPR network, spanning more than 5,000 law enforcement agencies, generating roughly 20 billion plate reads per month. Because virtually every jurisdiction that deploys Flock cameras also accepts Title 23 highway funding, the amendment would have forced agencies to choose between federal road money and their Flock contracts. In practice, that means the amendment would have ended Flock's policing business nationwide. The same logic would apply to other police LPR vendors.

Responding to WIRED before the markup, Flock Chief Communications Officer Josh Thomas expressed the company's opposition, citing crime-solving benefits of the technology. Thomas said: "We hope the Committee members review this amendment carefully before heading down a similar path that would leave our first responders without the tools they need to keep residents safe."

Killed Without Debate

According to committee markup records, Amendment 221 was on the agenda but was eliminated by a vote without receiving any substantive discussion. The markup ran more than 14 hours, during which numerous other amendments were debated at length. According to the legislative record, the amendment was killed by a vote of 20 yeas and 44 nays. Graves and Larsen both voted against it, marking a notable bipartisan rejection.

Although amendments can be reintroduced later after being voted down in committee, those circumstances create substantial hurdles. A recorded "no" creates a public legislative record of opposition that sponsors need to overcome. In effect, a "no" vote is more consequential than withdrawing.

The Flock Lobbying Connection

A review of Flock's recent lobbying disclosures shows that Don Andres, one of the company's current registered lobbyists, previously served as a deputy chief of staff and legislative director to Rep. García, the Democratic co-sponsor of Amendment 221.

IPVM could not determine whether Andres or Flock influenced the handling of the amendment. Flock declined to comment. Andres also did not respond to a request for comment. A spokeswoman for García said "no," without elaborating, when asked whether Andres or anyone else on behalf of Flock had contacted the office regarding Amendment 221.

The Andres connection is one piece of a much larger lobbying buildup. As we reported in April 2026, Flock more than 10x'd its federal lobbying spend in a single year. The company retained BGR Government Affairs, the third-highest-earning lobbying firm in Washington in 2025, and Mercury Public Affairs, whose former co-chair Susie Wiles became Trump's White House Chief of Staff.

Lawmakers' Unusual Silence

While it is common for legislative proposals to fail to advance in committee, the amendment's failure without discussion or broader debate stands out, given that both García and Larsen represent districts where Flock has faced some of the most documented backlash in the country, yet neither acted to advance it.

García co-sponsored the amendment but said nothing to advance it at the markup. His Chicago-area district is in Illinois, where the Secretary of State found Flock in violation of state law. Nearby, Evanston ended its contract, and Oak Park did too. Mount Prospect was at the center of an abortion data case that prompted a congressional letter to Flock.

The Democrat in committee leadership who voted against the amendment, Larsen of Washington State, has a district (below) that covers Snohomish County north of Seattle, a hotspot for Flock backlash. Everett disabled its cameras after a public records ruling. Lynnwood voted 7-0 to terminate after ICE and CBP accessed data from nearby cities without local knowledge. Mountlake Terrace canceled before implementation, its mayor calling Flock "weaponized against cities." IPVM found no Flock campaign contributions to Larsen in available records.

Factors Behind the Amendment

The political case for the amendment rested on a documented and growing record of ALPR misuse. The most prominent catalyst was a case reported by 404 Media in which a Texas sheriff's deputy queried Flock's then-83,000-camera network to track a woman specifically because, the deputy wrote, she "had an abortion." That case prompted a congressional letter to Flock's CEO signed by members on both sides of the aisle.

In Illinois, García's home state, the Secretary of State's office found Flock in violation of state law. In Kansas, a police officer was arrested for stalking his estranged wife using Flock's database. In New Mexico, three people, including two minors, were held at gunpoint based on erroneous Flock alerts.

Concerns over these issues have sparked multiple lawsuits, including class actions against Flock seeking potentially billions of dollars in damages, and lawsuits against communities using Flock by civil liberties nonprofits over alleged violations of constitutional rights. A growing backlash is also emerging at the grassroots level, as residents in municipalities increasingly oppose contract approvals, with some local officials also voicing concerns. Some even protested outside Flock's HQ in Atlanta.

Flock's Political Backing

The amendment faced a structural obstacle beyond committee politics. The Trump administration has actively supported warrantless LPR use: the Justice Department filed a Norfolk LPR statement of interest explicitly defending such LPR use, citing the reliance of 137,000 federal law enforcement officers on the technology. The same administration has deployed LPR networks for immigration enforcement and threatened to sue states that restrict plate data sharing with ICE.

Future Legislative Debates

The federal path is blocked for now, but the political conditions that produced Amendment 221 may not go away. State legislatures have moved faster than Congress, with at least 16 states introducing LPR legislation in 2025 and several enacting restrictions. Each new misuse case, lawsuit, or state-level ban adds to the record that federal opponents will use the next time they find a vehicle. With a new Congress seated in January 2027 and a presidential election in 2028, the question is not whether this fight returns to the federal level — it is when, and in what form.