DEFENSE Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 6, 2025
Bottom line
This bill expands the authority to counter drones at public events by allowing federal agencies to deputize local law enforcement for this purpose, aiming to enhance security at vulnerable locations.
What it actually does
This bill authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General to deputize state or local law enforcement officers, granting them federal authority to detect, identify, monitor, or track unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and apply countermeasures at specific public events and sites protected by temporary flight restrictions. It mandates training and federal oversight for these deputized officers and restricts them to using federally authorized equipment.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this legislation is a critical step to enhance public safety at large gatherings by empowering local law enforcement with necessary tools to combat the growing threat of unauthorized drones, leveraging existing local presence for rapid response.
Opponents contend
Critics may contend that expanding federal deputization for sensitive counter-drone authorities could lead to inconsistent application, raise civil liberties concerns regarding surveillance, and pose risks of collateral damage, especially without robust federal funding for training and equipment.
The bill is very short and can be read quickly, allowing ample time for comprehensive evaluation.
Section 2(m)(1)
Authorization for State/Local LEO Deputization for Drone Countermeasures
This provision amends the Homeland Security Act to allow the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General to deputize state or local law enforcement officers. These deputized officers can then use federal authority to detect, identify, monitor, or track unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and potentially mitigate threats from them, specifically at sites with temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) like stadiums, large public gatherings, or other FAA-designated TFR areas.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for public safety, enabling a more robust and localized response to drone threats at vulnerable public gatherings. It allows federal agencies to leverage the existing presence and rapid response capabilities of state and local law enforcement.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that expanding federal deputization for such sensitive authorities could lead to inconsistent application, potential civil liberties concerns regarding surveillance, or risks of accidental interference with legitimate drone operations. Concerns about adequate training and oversight for a potentially large number of deputized officers could also be raised.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances enhanced security at public events against potential concerns regarding the federalization of local law enforcement, civil liberties, and the technical complexities of drone interdiction.
Section 2(m)(2) and (m)(3)
Mandatory Training and Federal Oversight for Deputized Officers
This provision mandates that only state or local law enforcement officers who have completed specific training, as determined by the Secretary of DHS/AG in coordination with the Secretary of Transportation and FAA Administrator, can be deputized. It also requires the Secretary of DHS/AG, in coordination with DOT and FAA, to exercise oversight over the use of this authority by deputized officers.
Section 2(m)(4)
Restriction to Authorized Equipment for Counter-UAS Operations
This provision limits the equipment that can be used for unmanned aircraft system (UAS) detection, identification, monitoring, or tracking under this new authority. It specifies that only systems or technologies included on a list maintained by the Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Department of Justice, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and National Telecommunications and Information Administration, are authorized.
The bill grants authority to deputized officers to protect specific sites: those with flight restrictions under 49 U.S.C. 40103 note (e.g., major sporting events), locations of eligible large public gatherings under 49 U.S.C. 44812(c) (e.g., certain critical infrastructure or events), or public gatherings with temporary flight restrictions at the FAA Administrator's discretion under 49 U.S.C. 40103(b).
Section 2(m)(1)(A), (B), (C)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid reprinting lengthy existing statutes and to ensure consistency with current legal definitions of protected airspace and events.
Case for: Supporters argue this precise referencing ensures the new authority aligns perfectly with existing federal frameworks for airspace security and event protection, preventing ambiguity or overlap.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on multiple external statutory references makes the bill less transparent, requiring a reader to consult several other legal texts to fully grasp the bill's practical application and the specific types of events or locations covered.
Estimated impact: This defines the specific geographic and event-based scope where the new drone countermeasure authority can be exercised, covering potentially hundreds of large public gatherings and critical sites annually.