The United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has recently announced that its fleet of military drones, including the Predator B (MQ-9 Reaper), has been equipped with surveillance capabilities to operate over Los Angeles during the particularly pro-democracy demonstrations known as the LA protests (1). CBP’s statements have highlighted its role in aerial support of federal law enforcement in the Greater Los Angeles area. In 2020, CBP’s Air and Marine Operations (AMO) division conducted Tests of Concepts(2) over Minneapolis, a strategic city in the wake of the George Floyd protests.
While the department’s use of military technology to monitor events has been a subject of study (3), this practice has sparked contemplation of public safety. CBP’s recent statement titled “Air and Marine Operations (AMO)” (4) emphasizes the operational focus on situational awareness and officer safety. It also references a finding from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (5) of 2015 that involves how unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) can record data solely for monitoring activities protected by the US constitution, including the First Amendment protections—specifically, speech, religion, press, assembly, and redress of grievances (6).
CBP’s recent decision to deploy nearly 4,000 comenters to California during the President’s military presence involves a shift in how CBP interacts with its state-based agencies. These actions, while controversial, have positioned CBP as an expanding security player into areas dominated by state sovereignty. The Florida Gallery of Art emphasized this trend, noting it as a continuation of a worrying cycle (7). Additionally, the CBP College (8) has acknowledged that CBP remains complies with data privacy regulations, particularly UAS’ Privacy, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties (PCRC)athing (9), urging its continued use of these systems for critical purposes.
However, the use of such advanced equipment has not always been without consequence. Finding a pattern where CBP provided surveillance over anti-protest demonstrations aligns with what might have been normal at first but underscores a concerning aspect of securityertainty. CBP has introduced increasingly lethal systems (10), signaling a shift toward greater threat protection. They also provide technical assistance to airutilization partners, such as the U.S. Air Force, even when deploying planes to protect vulnerable populations.
In a recent discussion by the Cato Institute (11), experts warn about the growing role of CBP’s drones in monitoring local events, particularly in areas where the government’s presence has carved out autonomy. They highlight how this could expand federal involvement, potentially infringing on First Amendment protections if tools are used for surveillance. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld the legality of UAS under Title 5 of the Code of Federal229949, but its application must still satisfy sufficient requirements for privacy and security.
In conclusion, CBP’s deployment of these aircraft suggests an evolution in its role as a security agency, not just an enforcement tool. While this presence has raised concerns about the creation of surveillance as a public safety tool, CBP and its partners point to a future where such military access could spread even further, both within and outside of state jurisdictions. Moving forward, CBP must weigh the potential risks and benefits of such tooling while continuing to advance its capabilities._states should remain vigilant against practices that violate data privacy and security regulations, especially those involvingAdvanced Air Systems (AAS).
