Congress to Take Another Crack at Drone-related Legislation

Lawmakers revisit drone security and counter-UAS policies as the commercial drone industry pushes for updated regulations.

By DRONELIFE Features Editor Jim Magill

(This is the sixth and final installment in a series of articles, examining the problems posed to critical infrastructure sites and other significant potential targets of drone incursions by hostile actors. Previous installments examined current federal laws pertaining to the use of counter-drone technology; the threats from UAVs faced by jails and prisons, conventional and nuclear power plants, sports stadiums and airports.

This article will examine federal legislation proposed in the last session of Congress that failed to be enacted into law, as well as what kind of drone-related legislation can be expected in the current session of Congress.)

With the recent frenzy over supposed drone sightings, in the U.S. Northeast and elsewhere, federal, state and local officials, law enforcement agencies and everyday citizens have raised questions over how to defuse potential threats from UAVs operated in an unsafe or malicious manner.

A joint statement issued in December by the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the FAA and the Department of Defense, which sought to allay concerns over the sightings, nevertheless indicated the need for increased vigilance, as the legitimate use of UAVs continues to expand. The report noted that there are “more than one million drones lawfully registered with the FAA in the United States and there are thousands of commercial, hobbyist and law enforcement drones lawfully in the sky on any given day.”

Now, even with the “drone scare” or 2024 largely defused, the proliferation of drones in the U.S. airspace is pointing to the need for Congress to take the lead in passing new legislation to keep the skies safe for legitimate air traffic, both manned and unmanned.

In an interview, Lisa Ellman, executive director of the Commercial Drone Alliance, said congressional action is needed to establish new rules for the wider use of counter-UAS technology to help deter the harmful use of drones and to facilitate the continued growth of the commercial drone industry.

“Technology’s moved quickly forward and the policies have lagged behind. I think everyone recognizes that some form of counter-drone legislation is overdue that we need to expand the authorities,” she said.

Ellman, who recently testified before a congressional subcommittee hearing on counter-UAS technology, said any new counter-drone bills passed by Congress should contain several elements.

“The first would be a way for appropriately trained private sector and law enforcement entities to use advanced detection technologies,” she said. “Second, we want to see a robust mitigation pilot program that would enable states or localities to utilize mitigation technology in certain circumstances.”

Several bills were introduced in the last session of Congress to expand the authorities of federal agencies to protect critical infrastructure sites, and other vulnerable facilities, such as sports arenas, from unlawful drone incursions. In addition, legislation was proposed to create pilot programs to expand the authority to employ counter-UAS technology to state, local, tribal and territorial law enforcement agencies, as well as some private entities operating sites considered vulnerable to potential drone attacks.

Although none of the legislation was passed in the last session of Congress, the sponsors of many of these bills have vowed to re-introduce them in the current congressional session. In addition, several new pieces of drone-related legislation have been introduced in the new 119^th Congress, which got under way January 1.

Bills introduced in the last Congress

In what proved to be a rare example of drone-related legislation to make it over the finish line in the previous Congress, in December the U.S. Senate passed a last-minute extension of authorization for federal agencies to disable drones determined to be a security threat. The bill, Counter-UAS Authority Extension Act, was sponsored by Michigan Democratic Senator Gary Peters, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The legislation, which was passed on December 20 — the last day before its authorities were set to expire — extended the counter-drone authorities of DHS and the FBI through Sept. 30, 2025.

Other proposed UAV-related bills were stalled or blocked before the end of the congressional session. Also in December, Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, blocked a bill, supported by Senate Democratic leadership, that would have authorized and provided resources to state and local authorities to track the then-unidentified drones flying over New York, New Jersey and other states. Paul said the bipartisan bill, sponsored by Peters and supported by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, would have increased the government’s surveillance powers, potentially leading to violations of citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights.

In what was perhaps the most ambitious attempt by Congress to enact legislation to expand counter-UAS authorities, Peters also introduced the Safeguarding the Homeland from the Threats Posed by Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act of 2023. Had it passed, the legislation would have expanded the authorities that allow DHS and DOJ to disable drones determined to pose a security risk.

It would have also provided certain state and local law enforcement agencies with the authority to use technology to help identify and mitigate urgent drone threats.

In the House, H.R. 8610 would have reauthorized and improved oversight of the counter-UAS authorities of DHS and DOJ, and expanded limited counter-UAS authorities to the FAA. The bill would also have gradually expanded authorities for counter-UAS detection and mitigation to eligible non-federal entities, including certain critical infrastructure facilities.

The bill would have set rules for establishing counter-drone operations at certain covered sites, including: critical infrastructure, such as energy production, transmission, distribution facilities and equipment, and railroad facilities; oil refineries and chemical facilities; amusement parks; and state prisons; as well as locations of large public gatherings and sites where flight restrictions are maintained, such as airports.

In addition, the legislation would have authorized “the acquisition, deployment, and operation of an approved counter-UAS detection system,” by certain state, local, territorial or tribal (SLTT) law enforcement agencies, in partnership with a covered entity, at a covered site.

A similar bill, H.R. 4333, introduced in the last session by Pennsylvania Democrat Chrissy Houlahan, was the House version of the Peters’ Senate bill. The legislation would have established a pilot program, initially consisting of 12 SLTT law enforcement agencies, to train members of those agencies and give them the tools needed to mitigate the threat from hostile drones.

 A congressional aide familiar with the legislation, said the SLTT agencies would “have authority to do advanced detection, which they have not had before, as well as mitigation, so they would be able to prove use of federal government-approved technology to mitigate drones.” The law enforcement agencies would have been limited to the use of non-kinetic mitigation methods, such as using radio signals, to bring the drones down.

The aide said House lawmakers have been working on some form of the legislation with their counterparts in Senator Peters’ office for the past several years and hope to get the bill re-introduced and passed in the current congressional session. In the last session of Congress, the bill attracted strong bipartisan support, with 36 sponsors, 18 Republicans and 18 Democrats.

Another bill introduced in the last session of Congress was H. R. 9949, which would have directed the administrator of the FAA to issue or revise regulations to provide for temporary flight restrictions in the vicinity of outdoor music festivals.

Bills introduced in the current congressional session

In addition to the likelihood that the above-mentioned bills would be reintroduced, several new drone-related bills have been introduced in the current congressional session. Last month Representatives Lou Correa, a California Democrat, and Texas Republican Troy Nehls introduced the bipartisan Directing Resources for Officers Navigating Emergencies (DRONE) Act of 2025. The DRONE Act would allow law enforcement to use federal grants to purchase and operate drones.

In the Senate, Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas and Democrat Jacky Rosen of Nevada in February introduced the Disabling Enemy Flight Entry and Neutralizing Suspect Equipment (DEFENSE) Act. The bill would “enhance security at major outdoor gatherings and sporting events by ensuring that state and local law enforcement have the authority and tools necessary to protect these events from aerial threats in real-time, rather than waiting for federal intervention,” according to a press release.

This bill has received the endorsements several major sports organizations, including the NFL, Major League Baseball, NASCAR, the NCAA, and the Southeastern Conference (SEC).

Ellman said that whatever form of drone-enabling or counter-UAS legislation that Congress ultimately passes should protect the rights of legitimate drone operators while protecting the public from the actions of malicious drone pilots.

“At a high level that we see innovation and security as two sides of the same coin,” she said. “We’re working with the federal government on moving both of these sets of rules and legislation forward simultaneously.”

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

Read the rest of the series:

• Navigating the Limits: Federal Laws Restrict Counter-Drone Measures for Critical Infrastructure
• Drones in the Wrong Hands: How Criminals Use UAVs to Threaten Prisons and Jails
• Are Drones a Threat to Nuclear Power Plants? Examining Risks to the U.S. Electric Grid
• Super Bowl Security: The Growing Challenge of Unauthorized Drones Over Stadiums
• Strengthening Airport Defenses: The Growing Need for Better Counter-Drone Measures

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.