The escalating concern over unidentified drone sightings across the East Coast has propelled state governors, including New York’s Kathy Hochul and New Jersey’s Phil Murphy, to demand federal intervention and legislation granting broader authority to address these airborne anomalies. The core issue lies in the current legal framework, which vests primary responsibility for drone mitigation with federal agencies, predominantly the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), leaving states largely powerless to respond. This has created a critical gap in security, particularly as the existing federal drone authority, established by the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2018, is set to expire on December 20th, coinciding with a potential government shutdown. The governors, along with other political figures, are advocating for legislative action that would empower state and local governments to not only track and investigate drone activity but also to take decisive measures, including disabling or destroying them, if deemed necessary.
Two proposed bills are at the center of this legislative push. The first, the Counter-UAS Authority Security, Safety, and Reauthorization Act, championed by Governor Hochul, seeks to renew and expand DHS’s drone tracking and investigation powers. Crucially, it would mandate DHS to delegate the authority to operate their own drone mitigation programs to state law enforcement agencies. This would encompass the ability to disrupt, disable, damage, or destroy drones, providing states with a direct means to counter perceived threats. The bill also emphasizes information sharing, requiring federal agencies to disseminate drone-related threat data to state and local governments, facilitating a more coordinated and comprehensive response. Introduced in the House in June, the bill has yet to be voted on, heightening anxiety as the current federal authority nears its expiration date.
The second bill, the Safeguarding the Homeland from the Threats Posed by Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act, advocated by Governor Murphy and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, focuses on renewing and broadening the powers of both DHS and the Department of Justice to intervene against potentially threatening drones. This bill explicitly authorizes seizing, confiscating, or destroying drones, and, similarly to the House bill, it would empower state and local law enforcement agencies to utilize DHS-approved technology for tracking, disabling, and destroying drones. The explicit inclusion of state and local agencies reflects a growing consensus that a multi-layered approach involving all levels of government is essential to effectively address the evolving drone threat landscape. The Senate bill has garnered significant support, with Schumer pledging to co-sponsor and “help pass” the legislation, signaling a potential path towards enhanced drone mitigation capabilities for states.
The urgency of these legislative efforts is underscored by the imminent lapse of the federal government’s existing drone authority. Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas has publicly emphasized the limitations of federal resources and the critical need for state and local involvement in drone response. The converging deadlines of the government shutdown and the expiring drone authority heighten the pressure on Congress to act swiftly. Governor Murphy, in a letter to President Biden and congressional leaders, highlighted the significant impediment posed by the lack of state and local authority to counter unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), stressing the importance of timely reauthorization of relevant legislation. While Congress grapples with government funding negotiations, the possibility of a temporary measure extending the shutdown deadline offers a brief window of opportunity to address the drone authority issue.
However, the prospect of granting state and local authorities the power to shoot down drones raises complex legal and safety concerns. While proposed legislation seeks to provide a legal framework for such actions, the act of shooting down a drone remains inherently dangerous and raises the potential for collateral damage. Experts, including Rick Smith, CEO of anti-drone technology company Axon, have warned of the risks involved, likening a downed drone to a “missile” capable of causing significant property damage and injury. The FAA reinforces this caution, emphasizing that unauthorized downing of drones by private citizens can result in civil penalties and criminal charges. The proposed legislation seeks to address this by granting authority to “use reasonable force, if necessary,” a provision intended to ensure that such actions are taken only as a last resort and with appropriate consideration for public safety.
The backdrop to this legislative push is the increasing frequency of reported drone sightings along the Eastern Seaboard, sparking national concern despite government assurances that these incidents do not pose immediate national security threats. The mystery surrounding the origin and purpose of these drones has amplified public anxiety and prompted calls for greater transparency from federal investigators. While the DHS and FBI have downplayed the national security implications, the lack of concrete information has fuelled speculation and underscored the need for more effective mechanisms to identify and track these airborne vehicles. The potential for misidentification, as suggested by an FBI official who noted that many reported sightings may be misidentified aircraft, further complicates the issue and highlights the need for public education and improved reporting protocols. The recent incidents of airport closures and arrests related to drone activity near airports underscore the potential for disruption and the need for a robust and coordinated response strategy.
