U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) used a Sunday social media post to draw a direct line between the spread of automated license plate reader cameras across American streets and what he describes as unchecked federal surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, using the moment to again push his legislation aimed at stripping intelligence agencies of the power to spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.
The Post
Paul, writing on X at 12:11 PM on September 6, 2026, posted the following in its entirety:
“Cameras on every corner. Federal agencies querying your data without ever seeing a judge. Different tools, same problem.
My Fourth Amendment Restoration and Protection Act would stop the government from using FISA to spy on Americans.”
The Legislation
The bill Paul referenced, S. 4998, the Fourth Amendment Restoration and Protection Act of 2026, was introduced in the Senate on July 15, 2026, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, where it currently has no cosponsors. The text of the bill would add a new title to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 barring federal officers from obtaining FISA Court orders for electronic surveillance, physical searches, pen registers, or the production of records targeting a United States person, and it would separately prohibit intelligence agencies from querying information already collected under Section 702 using search terms tied to a U.S. person. The bill also extends restrictions to surveillance conducted under Executive Order 12333, barring the use of any such information against a U.S. person in criminal, civil, or administrative proceedings, except when the person subjected to the surveillance is the one invoking it.
Not Paul’s First Attempt
This is not the first time Paul has introduced a bill by this name. A nearly identical measure, S. 3372, was introduced in the 118th Congress, and Paul’s Senate office described that legislation at the time as designed to keep the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court from being used to authorize surveillance of Americans while preserving the government’s ability to monitor foreign threats. In an official release, Paul’s office stated that the legislation would exempt Americans from the FISA process altogether while still protecting national security. Paul’s office said the bill would exempt Americans from the FISA process while ensuring both constitutional rights and national security are protected.
A Long-Running Fight Over FISA
Paul’s opposition to FISA authorities predates the current bill by more than a decade. In an op-ed republished on his Senate site, Paul said Section 702 of FISA is meant to target hostile foreign countries and terrorists to protect Americans from overseas threats, a purpose he supports, but argued that using that same authority to search through the texts, calls and emails of Americans swept up incidentally — a practice known as a backdoor search — is unconstitutional. He has separately criticized the most recent reauthorization of FISA’s Section 702 authority, arguing that lawmakers who pushed for what is often called a “clean” extension were, in effect, opposing any reform at all.
Linking FISA to License Plate Cameras
Sunday’s post marks a notable pivot for Paul, connecting a federal intelligence-gathering statute to a domestic law enforcement technology that has become a flashpoint in Washington over the past several months: automated license plate readers, most prominently those made by Flock Safety. Paul has personally weighed in on Flock’s cameras before. After a Kentucky police officer was arrested and accused of misusing Flock’s network to track an ex-girlfriend more than 2,000 times, Paul wrote on social media that the surveillance was carried out with no warrant and no probable cause.
A Bipartisan Backlash in Congress
Paul is far from alone in raising alarms about ALPR technology this year. Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., told Fox News Digital that while cameras are everywhere, allowing law enforcement to monitor the comings and goings of ordinary citizens crosses a line, arguing the United States is not the CCP or an Orwellian surveillance state. On the Democratic side, Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., wrote on X that private tech companies have profited from mass surveillance and that Congress must stop the expansion of the surveillance state.
Legislation Beyond Paul’s Bill
Other lawmakers have introduced their own measures targeting the technology. Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie and Missouri Republican Rep. Eric Burlison introduced H.R. 10221, the “Flock-Off Act,” which would cut off federal funding used by state and local agencies to buy, maintain or operate ALPR and biometric surveillance networks. Massie also introduced the separate Surveillance Accountability Act earlier this year. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., sent Flock Safety a letter this summer citing what he called a woeful lack of safeguards in the company’s technology, though he has said he does not oppose the underlying use of the tool by law enforcement. Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has also called publicly for an end to what he termed AI mass surveillance, naming Flock Safety directly.
No Bill Has Banned the Cameras Outright
Despite the volume of proposals, as of late August no bill introduced in Congress would ban Flock Safety’s automated license plate readers outright, even as a bipartisan group of lawmakers, most of them Republicans, has spent months introducing or promising legislation to rein in the technology. President Trump weighed in on the cameras for the first time, telling a reporter the technology has pros and cons and that his administration was studying the issue.
Local Governments Pulling Back
The congressional debate has coincided with a wave of local action. The Institute for Justice has counted 157 local governments that have canceled or declined to renew ALPR contracts since the beginning of 2025. Civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have filed amicus briefs arguing that ALPR networks give the government unprecedented tracking power that violates traditional Fourth Amendment protections, and the organization backed a bipartisan amendment to a federal highway funding bill this spring aimed at restricting the cameras’ use with federal dollars.
Becoming a Midterm Issue
The fight over camera surveillance has spilled into the 2026 midterm campaign trail. In Michigan’s 7th Congressional District, Democratic candidate William Lawrence has spoken out against Flock contracts, while his Republican opponent, Rep. Tom Barrett, has said through a spokesman that he holds serious concerns about how governments have used surveillance technology on citizens. Flock Safety says its cameras helped authorities locate more than 10,000 missing people last year and assisted in roughly 1 million criminal investigations.
Part of a Broader Record
Sunday’s post fits a pattern Paul has followed for years on privacy issues. He previously joined Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., to reintroduce the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, which would block the government from purchasing Americans’ personal data from data brokers as a way of circumventing the warrant requirement. He has also pushed amendments requiring warrants before law enforcement can use drone surveillance domestically, arguing that battlefield technology is not well-suited for unrestrained use on American streets.
What Comes Next
S. 4998 remains in the Senate Judiciary Committee with no cosponsors as of its introduction, and Paul’s Sunday post gives no indication of a scheduled markup or floor vote. Whether the bill advances further than his past attempts at similar legislation remains to be seen, but Paul’s decision to tie it explicitly to the ongoing Flock Safety controversy suggests he intends to use the current bipartisan camera backlash to build momentum for the broader FISA fight he has waged since well before this year’s surveillance headlines began.