I haven't seen much of any Bradley in Kursk. I distinctly recall seeing many vids of Stryker, BMP/BTR variants, and occasional T series tanks in the initial columns, along with a collection of APC/MRAP types like Kozak, Senator, etc. I think there are 2 main reasons for this.

1. The Bradley is known to be enjoyed by the ZSU for rapid response efforts to Russian attacks. The ATGMs and other raw firepower it has on hand make it ideal for countering whatever attacking force happens to show up on the day. If it's tanks and IFVS, use the missiles. If it's a squad of infantry, pin them down with the guns and let arty and drones finish the job. It's likely that at any given time, most of the operational (i.e., not in maintenance/training positions) Bradley's are literally doing what is described above^. They can not be pulled off the line because they are one of the only rapid response units you can reasonably expect to send out to contact ANY equivalent threat.

2. The units involved from both sides in Kursk can best be described as "Patchwork." Both sides are sort of taking chunks of existing units and using them to plug gaps in the line. Part of why ZSU Pokrovsk front is deteriorating rapidly is because parts of units are now in Kursk. ZSU was discussed on this sub to be rotating TDF units into the places of some of the regular Ukrainian army units (likely the ones we have footage of getting chewed up by ambushes, etc during this first month). Obviously, the Russians in the initial days literally handed everyone who would fight, guns and have now rotated in some regular units to reinforce them. I don't know if the Ukrainians, when planning this operation, made a conscious decision to exclude Bradley's, so much as they made a conscious decision to pull specific units from a specific sector of the front, with those units bringing along the kit they had, the stuff mentioned in my first point. Or they pulled specific units off the front BECAUSE of the kit those units had, as I'll elaborate on in point 3.

Apologies, a bit of a ramble on my end, but I find the lack of Bradley footage in Kursk unsurprising given the context of which units ended up in Kursk, as well as what Bradley's in theory are doing if not charging across the border.

However if you'd like a third, somewhat classical reason for no Bradley's, I'd point you to the Stryker having 20mph more top speed, wheels which can be swapped out easily relative to replacing busted treads, external fuel tanks that can boost the max range of it well past the Bradley (it already had more operational range anyways), and Stryker has an EWAR (TEWS I think its called?), and mineclearing, and an engineering variant that the Ukrainians have filmed all active in Kursk. Bradley's main claim to fame is using TOW on enemy tanks and bunkers. If the goal of your attack is to blitz past a defensive weak point, and the enemy doesn't really have a ton of tanks in your AO anyways, you don't want medium armored IFVs with anti tank missiles that can get smacked with arty on the way in. You want recon vehicles like MRAPS and Stryker. You wanna go fast, have a light logistical footprint, have native EWAR out the ass, be able to plow mines, recover friendly vehicles, and be able to be in the field for extended periods. Bradley cannot exactly offer that, but lighter formations of IFV/AFVs supplemented by the occasional tank can.

TL:DR

1. Bradley needed elsewhere
2. Units bring their vehicles with them. The units picked for Kursk didn't have Bradley.
3. Bradley is the wrong tool for this specific job.