The Evolving Threat Landscape
Drones touch public safety and critical infrastructure on a daily basis. The technology to detect and mitigate unauthorized flights is advancing, but a central tension remains; most local and state agencies lack legal authority to take direct counter-drone action. The Drone Thought Leadership Summit, co-hosted by the University of Virginia’s Center for Public Safety and Justice and DRONERESPONDERS brought together a panel to examine this gap between risk and lawful response.
Unauthorized drone activity is already here and increasingly purposeful. Recent cases include suspicious flights over power plants and shipyards, Wi-Fi/Bluetooth sniffing near a financial institution and overhead mapping of chemical processes that can reveal proprietary formulations. However, most state and local agencies are still limited to passive Detect-Track-Identify (DTI). As Virginia State Police’s DJ Smith notes, state, local, tribal and territorial (SLTT) teams might be “the first ones on the scene and the last ones to leave,” but they still need authority and resources to match that role.
“Our officers saw fifty drones come off the coast. Chiefs and prosecutors assumed we had the authority to respond, but we didn’t. That was the wakeup call. It showed us that without legislative clarity, we are exposed.”
— Paul Goldenberg, senior U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) advisor, reflecting on a high-profile New Jersey incident.
Understanding the Current Legal Boundaries
Today, only a handful of federal agencies - including the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of Energy and Department of Homeland Security - are authorized to conduct counter-drone operations. Local and state agencies may detect and monitor but cannot disable drones under federal law.
There is momentum to address that gap: DHS, DOJ, NSC and congressional partners are working on a legislative proposal that expands SLTT authority while including the right mix of standardized training, oversight and clear procedures. Mary Rupert, DHS Policy Analyst, explained the balancing act as “mak[ing] sure authority is granted to the right, well-trained hands…That’s the framework being debated now.” Rupert also discussed an expected grant program modeled on familiar FEMA processes that aims to inject funding for DTI.
Liz Forro, Policy Director for the Commercial Drone Alliance (CDA), broadened the picture of future counter-drone federal funding and legislation by noting that we should expect a phased approach prioritizing major events and the Washington, D.C., area. But due to ongoing debates about privacy and oversight at the federal level, legislation remains pending, leaving SLTT agencies in a holding pattern.
Training and Standards
The importance of standardized and rigorous training was a common theme in the conversation. Panelists discussed current efforts: national curriculum, shared standards, and recurrent training shaped by real SLTT feedback. The discussion emphasized that while legislation is pending, agencies should use the time to prepare.
Doing so includes collaborating with neighboring agencies to institutionalize DTI; training staff and the public to reduce confusion and demystify drones; avoiding actions that create federal exposure; and sharing field lessons that shape national standards.
Looking Ahead
While the legislative process moves forward, there is significant work to be done now in education, training and preparation. DJ Smith summed up the ideal path to counter-drone legislation: “Elevate SLTT voices, nail DTI today and be ready to add mitigation the moment authority arrives.”
Panelists agreed that the first wave of legislation may not grant full mitigation authority on the SLTT level. Instead, it may begin with expanded detection and tracking permissions, both of which can create a foundation for more robust authority later. As Forro said, “We may not get everything in the first bill. Crawling is better than standing still. Even incremental progress matters.”