Seaport Security Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Patronis, Jimmy [R-FL-1]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 9, 2026
Bottom line
The 'Seaport Security Act of 2026' aims to enhance national and economic security by creating a legal framework to protect U.S. seaports from potential threats posed by unauthorized drone operations.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits the unauthorized operation of unmanned aircraft systems (drones) within designated 'covered airspace' over seaports, defining specific criteria for both seaports and the restricted airspace. It establishes civil and criminal penalties for violations and grants federal agencies and seaport authorities the power to detect, mitigate, seize, and disable unauthorized drones. The bill also mandates the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to issue implementing regulations.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that current federal law is insufficient to protect critical seaport infrastructure from the growing threat of malicious drone use, including for trafficking, smuggling, and reconnaissance. They emphasize the significant danger a drone attack poses to national and economic security, given the vast amount of cargo and passengers handled by U.S. seaports, necessitating robust preventative measures.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might argue that the bill grants broad authority to federal agencies and seaports to detect and disable drones, which could infringe on privacy rights or interfere with legitimate drone operations not explicitly covered by the authorized exceptions. Concerns might also be raised about the potential for misuse of these powers or the impact on commercial drone innovation and recreational drone use near coastal areas.
The bill is concise and its provisions are relatively straightforward, making it accessible for a quick but informed read by interested stakeholders.
Section 3(a)(1)
Incorporates UAS Definitions into Federal Criminal Code
This provision updates section 31(b) of title 18, United States Code, to include definitions for 'unmanned aircraft' and 'unmanned aircraft system' by referencing existing definitions in 49 U.S.C. sections 44801 and 46501. This ensures consistency in terminology for drone-related offenses within the federal criminal code, providing a clear legal basis for the bill's new prohibitions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this is a necessary technical amendment to ensure clarity and consistency in applying federal law to unmanned aircraft, facilitating effective enforcement of drone-related regulations and criminal statutes.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against technical definitional updates that align with existing federal law, as they generally serve to improve legal precision without introducing new substantive policy.
Tradeoffs
None apparent for this technical amendment, as it primarily serves to harmonize definitions across federal statutes.
Section 3(a)(2)
Modifies Existing Airspace Restriction Exemptions
This provision amends section 40A(c) of title 18, United States Code, by striking paragraph (1) and redesignating the subsequent paragraphs. Section 40A generally deals with criminal penalties for operating drones near critical infrastructure. The removal of paragraph (1) effectively eliminates an existing exemption from these prohibitions, potentially broadening the scope of restricted drone operations near various types of critical infrastructure.
Section 3(a)(3) (new Section 40B(b) and (d))
Prohibits Unauthorized Drone Operations Over Seaports
This core provision establishes a new federal crime, prohibiting any person from operating an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system within 'covered airspace' over a seaport without authorization. 'Covered airspace' is defined as the airspace up to 1,000 feet above ground level over a seaport, plus any additional lateral or vertical airspace designated by the FAA. It also prohibits interference with seaport security, operations, communications, or navigational systems, regardless of altitude.
Section 3(a)(3) (new Section 40B(c))
Establishes Exemptions for Authorized Drone Operations
This subsection outlines specific exemptions to the general prohibition on drone operations in covered airspace. These include operations conducted by the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, or other federal agencies under statutory authority; State or local law enforcement with prior notification; seaport authorities or their contracted entities for operational, safety, or security purposes with notice; operations authorized under an FAA waiver; and operations necessary for emergency response to immediate threats to human life or property, with subsequent notification.
Section 3(a)(3) (new Section 40B(e))
Grants Authority to Detect, Mitigate, Seize, and Disable Unauthorized Drones
This subsection explicitly authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and seaports to detect, mitigate, seize, and disable any unmanned aircraft operating in covered airspace without authorization. This grants significant counter-UAS capabilities to both federal and local entities, allowing them to take direct action against drones deemed to be in violation of the new restrictions.
Section 3(a)(3) (new Section 40B(f) and (g))
Establishes Civil and Criminal Penalties for Violations
This subsection imposes a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per violation for operating an unauthorized drone in covered airspace, with the possibility of seizure or forfeiture of the unmanned aircraft. Willful violations carry criminal penalties of up to 2 years imprisonment or a fine, increasing to up to 10 years imprisonment or a fine if the violation is committed with the intent to surveil, damage, disrupt, or facilitate criminal or terrorist activity.
Section 3(a)(3) (new Section 40B(h))
Mandates FAA Rulemaking for Implementation
This subsection directs the FAA Administrator to issue regulations within 180 days of the Act's enactment to implement the new section. This includes the crucial tasks of designating specific 'covered airspaces' around seaports and establishing appropriate notification procedures for authorized operations. These regulations will provide the practical framework for how the new law is applied and enforced.
Amends 18 U.S.C. 40A(c) by striking paragraph (1) and redesignating subsequent paragraphs. This effectively removes an existing exemption from prohibitions on drone operations near critical infrastructure, potentially broadening the scope of restricted drone operations near various types of critical infrastructure beyond just seaports.
Section 3(a)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending existing code by reference, rather than explicitly restating the amended text. While common, it requires extra effort for a reader to fully grasp the change without consulting external legal resources.
Case for: Supporters would argue this streamlines and strengthens the overall framework for protecting critical infrastructure by removing an exemption that might have been deemed unnecessary or a security risk, thereby enhancing national security.
Case against: Critics might argue that without knowing the specific exemption removed, it's difficult to assess if its elimination is an overreach that could hinder legitimate activities previously permitted near other critical infrastructure, potentially creating unforeseen burdens.
Estimated impact: Potentially broad, as 18 U.S.C. 40A covers a wide range of critical infrastructure beyond seaports, meaning the impact of removing an exemption could extend to many sectors.