In the current week, President Donald Trump voiced backing for automated license plate reader systems (ALPRs), devices that capture snapshots and store them in a searchable police archive.
Flock Safety, the nation’s largest supplier of ALPR technology, has faced criticism for privacy breaches and police misuse linked to its products. Yet Trump’s endorsement of this contentious tool aligns with his long-held views on policing.
During a press gaggle aboard Air Force One on Sunday, a reporter asked Trump for his thoughts on Flock cameras.
“I sort of like them,” Trump said, “because of law enforcement. Some people don’t. They think it’s an infringement. But I like them.”
Trump didn’t elaborate, though as The Washington Post noted, he “has previously sidestepped questions about his stance.” When asked about Flock cameras last month in the Oval Office, Trump said, “You have pros and cons, right? It’s being studied right now. We’ll have an answer as to our views on it over the next couple of weeks.”
Trump’s answer this week struck more of a gut reaction—tethering the issue to the fact that law enforcement favors them—than a response grounded in the findings of any study. It also neatly aligns with his longstanding beliefs about policing.
As the president pointed out, the cameras have indeed facilitated abuses and “infringements” against members of the public. But Trump often speaks of the police as if they’re too constrained to do their jobs properly and expresses a wish for them to act with impunity.
During his 2016 campaign, Trump backed stop-and-frisk, a practice in which officers routinely stop people and search them for drugs or weapons without probable cause. “We did it in New York [City], it worked incredibly well,” he claimed, and he pledged to expand it nationwide.
Of course, stop-and-frisk was halted in New York City in 2014 after a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional, violating both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
And despite Trump’s claims to the contrary, stop-and-frisk did not yield the results he described. Officers disproportionately targeted young Black and Latino men for searches but rarely uncovered anything illegal. And after the program ended, crime not only did not rise, it fell.
In his first term, during a July 2017 speech ostensibly about immigration and violent gangs, Trump pivoted, telling police officers, “please don’t be too nice” when arresting suspects, adding, “when you guys put somebody in the car” and “you put your hand over” their head to protect it, “you can take the hand away, OK?” (“I believe he was making a joke at the time,” said then-White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.)
At a 2024 campaign stop, Trump declared, “We have to let the police do their job,” even “if they have to be extraordinarily rough.”
“They’re not allowed to do it, because the liberal left won’t let them do it. The liberal left wants to destroy them,” he added. “One rough hour—and I mean real rough—the word will get out, and it will end immediately.”
Perhaps most infamously, in 1989, police arrested five teenagers, aged 14 to 16, for beating and raping a jogger in Central Park. Trump placed full-page ads in four New York City newspapers calling for their execution. “Bring back the death penalty,” the ad proclaimed. “Bring back our police!”
The suspects confessed, but only after hours of interrogation without an attorney or a parent present. They were convicted despite a lack of physical evidence linking them to the scene; each served between six and 13 years in prison before being exonerated. The city ultimately awarded them $41 million.
After their exoneration, not only did Trump refuse to change his stance, he continued to insist on their guilt, despite DNA evidence proving none of the five teens were involved. As recently as the 2024 presidential debate, Trump said, “They admitted…they pled guilty, and I said, Well, if they pled guilty, they badly hurt a person—killed a person ultimately.” (None of them pled guilty, and the victim is still alive.)
Thus, it makes sense that Trump would back Flock cameras, even with their potential for misuse. In recent years, authorities have detained or stopped dozens of innocent people due to Flock misidentifications, while an increasing number of officers have been caught using Flock’s database to monitor current or former romantic partners.
It’s especially telling that Trump chose this moment to articulate his support for Flock cameras, at a time when bipartisan backlash is growing.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott paused funding for ALPRs in his state, while Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis described the cameras as being “out of control.”
On Tuesday, Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D–Ill.) and Michael Cloud (R–Texas) announced the No FLOCK Act, which would withhold federal transportation funding from states that do not curb ALPR usage. This sits alongside the Flock-Off Act, introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) and co-sponsored by Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.), which would bar federal funding for ALPRs except for border or toll enforcement.
Polls also indicate waning public support for Flock cameras. “Last August, 45 percent supported the technology and 33 percent opposed,” Reason contributor Christian Britschgi wrote recently. “This year, 46 percent oppose ALPRs and 38 percent support them.”
And that doesn’t even mention the candidates for office who appear to be endorsing ALPRs in their communities.
But as Trump noted, one group that still seems to back Flock cameras is law enforcement. And that suffices for Trump, who has never shown a strong appetite for oversight or curbing police power.
