A mainstream progressive would likely view this bill largely positively because it places meaningful limits on police use of facial recognition, bans large-scale face surveillance, and requires accuracy testing and transparency.

The bill’s prohibition on using facial recognition with body cameras and for immigration enforcement and its reporting, auditing, and removal requirements align with civil liberties and racial justice concerns.

They may still worry that some exceptions (prosecutor-approved orders, emergency uses) could be abused and that enforcement and funding mechanisms might be insufficient.

A pragmatic moderate would view the bill as a balanced attempt to protect civil liberties while preserving law enforcement tools with judicial oversight.

The warrant/order requirement, defined exceptions for urgent situations and booking, and NIST-driven testing provide procedural safeguards and technical standards.

They would be attentive to administrative burdens, costs, and whether the rules unduly delay investigations; they would want clear timelines, funded compliance, and measurable metrics.

A mainstream conservative would likely be skeptical of the bill because it places substantial restrictions on law enforcement tools, adds federal technical and civil oversight, and increases liability exposure for agencies and officers.

Key concerns would include warrant requirements and limits on using DMV databases and bodycam images, which could impede investigations, and the creation of new federal standards and DOJ rulemaking seen as federal overreach.

They might appreciate the emphasis on accuracy and preventing wrongful identifications but would view many provisions as burdensome and potentially harmful to public safety and state autonomy.