Congressional Hearing Reveals Gaps in Counter-Drone Readiness Amid Concerns About N.Y./N.J. Drone Sightings

 For clarity and depth, we’ve divided our coverage of the recent Congressional hearing on drone activity into two parts. This article, Part 1, focuses on federal officials’ testimony regarding unexplained drone incursions in New York and New Jersey and the broader challenges facing counter-drone operations. Part 2 will delve into insights from private-sector experts on this pressing issue. Stay tuned for a comprehensive analysis

Lawmakers press federal officials for answers on N.Y./N.J. drone sightings

By DRONELIFE Features Editor Jim Magill

(Part 1 of two parts)

Federal law enforcement and security officials had few answers as members of Congress on Tuesday grilled them about the spate of recent unidentified drone incursions in the skies above New Jersey and New York, as well as other subjects related to the government’s counter-drone operations.

Testifying before a hearing entitled, “Safeguarding the Homeland from Unmanned Aerial Systems,” three officials, representing the FBI, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Department of Justice respectively admitted that they still could not identify the origins of a number of large unmanned aerial vehicles, which have been spotted flying over the two states for the past several weeks.

In response to a series of questions from August Pfluger, cochairman of the House subcommittee on Counterterrorism, Law Enforcement, and Intelligence, an FBI official said the Bureau is still “actively investigating the series of drone sightings.

“Let’s just start with current events and I’ll ask an open-ended question.  What is going on in New Jersey?” Pfluger said.

“The Bureau is actively investigating the situation you mentioned,” replied Robert Wheeler Jr., assistant director of the FBI’s Critical Incident Response Group. “But I don’t have an answer of who’s responsible for that.” He said the FBI is analyzing reports, still pictures and videos submitted by members of the public to try to get a clue as to the mysterious UAVs’ origins. “Some are described as being slightly larger than a commercially available drone.” The sightings include fixed-wing as well as rotary drones, he said.

Wheeler said the FBI is continuing to work with state and local officials to get the answers regarding the origins of the drone sightings and noted the agency has established a tip line for the public at 1-800-CALL-FBI.

Pfluger continued to press Wheeler about the unidentified UAV sightings, including some that have occurred over sensitive military installations and other important national security sites such as President-elect Donald Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, N.J.

“Why can’t we take action against these drones that are flying over sensitive sites?” he asked.

Wheeler said in regard to the military sites, the responsibility of taking any counter-drone action would fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense. Under current law, only the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Defense and Energy have express statutory authority to employ counter-drone measures, including forcing a drone to land.

As part of a joint hearing by the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism, Law Enforcement, and Intelligence and the Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime Security, the lawmakers also queried the witnesses about counter-drone activity undertaken at the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada.

Keith Jones, Customs and Border Protection’s deputy executive assistant commissioner of Air and Marine Operations, testified that in recent years the agency has seen a dramatic uptick in the number of UAV sightings in the U.S./Mexico border region, many of which are thought to represent illegal drug cartel activities. In fiscal year ‘24 CBP brought down 60 UAVs near the border, representing a small fraction of the total number of drone sightings the agency recorded in that time period.

Jones said CBP recorded about 45,000 detections in the Southwest border region. Of that number the agency recorded about 2,500 incursions, in which a drone flew into U.S. airspace. “So now we’re talking about a very small subset. A lot of the surveillance is taking place outside of our jurisdiction in foreign airspace. That makes it particularly challenging for mitigation.”

In response to a question about what the CBP does about the vast majority of drone detections, in which the UAV remains outside of U.S. airspace, Jones said CBP alerts authorities in Mexico of their presence.

“We do communicate directly with our foreign partners and our communication is healthy,” he said.

When pressed as to whether Mexican authorities are quick to respond to these sightings of suspected drones operating on their side of the border, Jones responded that the situation was very complex and difficult for the local law enforcement personnel.

“A lot of times these are in areas that are not highly populated. They’re very difficult to get to. They’re also controlled by cartels. So, by the time law enforcement responds, it’s very challenging for them,” he said. “It’s not for lack of effort.  It’s just a very difficult environment.”

Officials call on Congress to extend counter-drone authority

Brad Wiegmann, deputy assistant attorney general for National Security, testified that the DOJ and the FBI were only able to provide counter-drone measures at a small number of the many sporting contests and other special events that take place across the country every year. He called on Congress to pass legislation to give greater authority to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies to employ counter-drone technologies at such events.

“Each year the FBI can cover a number of special events and DHS covers some as well,” he said. “We’re talking about big events like the Super Bowl, the World Series, the Indianapolis 500, that sort of thing.

“But obviously those are not the only events that could be subject to an attack or a drone threat. You have many other football games, baseball games, soccer games, the World Cup.”

Several lawmakers inquired as to whether the federal law enforcement agencies had the resources to respond to the threat posed by drones operated by malicious actors. Representative Carlos Gimenez, Republican of Florida, asked the three officials if their agencies had the most advanced counter-drone technology available to them.

“Right around the corner, if not already here, is AI. And so, some of the techniques that we use to mitigate current drones won’t work on AI (drones). Because they won’t be piloted,” he said. “Do we have any capabilities to actually go kinetic, to actually knock these things down?”

Jones declined to answer, saying he did not want to provide an assessment of the CBP’s counter-drone capabilities in an open congressional hearing.

In response to a question about the FBI’s budget for counter-drone operations, Wheeler responded that the agency appropriates about $500,000 to the effort. This compares with a total FBI budget of about $11 million.

“That’s nothing. Why is it so low?” asked Representative Tony Gonzales, a Republican who represents the border region of Texas.

New York Republic Anthony D’Esposito agreed that the agency was not spending enough on counter-drone operations. “A half a million dollars in drone expenditure appropriations? I mean, that’s absolutely insane,” he said. “Drones continue to rapidly advance and become more readily available. This, along with the expansion threats from drones being used by bad actors has only increased.”

(Part 2 will examine the testimony of private-sector experts on counter-drone operations.)

Want DRONELIFE news delivered to your inbox every weekday?  Sign up here.

Read more:

• Counter UAS Update, From the Floor of National Public Safety UAS Conference
• “A Great, Looming Concern” Law Enforcement Pushes for Local Counter-Drone Authority
• Congress Introduces New Counter-UAS Legislation
• The Regulatory Environment for Counter UAS: a DRONELIFE Exclusive from AUVSI NE

Jim Magill is a Houston-based writer with almost a quarter-century of experience covering technical and economic developments in the oil and gas industry. After retiring in December 2019 as a senior editor with S&P Global Platts, Jim began writing about emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, robots and drones, and the ways in which they’re contributing to our society. In addition to DroneLife, Jim is a contributor to Forbes.com and his work has appeared in the Houston Chronicle, U.S. News & World Report, and Unmanned Systems, a publication of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International.