The DRONE Act of 2025 (H.R. 1058) authorizes recipients of two Department of Justice grant programs to use awarded funds to purchase and operate unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for public-safety purposes. Concretely, the bill adds UAS acquisition and operation to the list of permissible uses under the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program and the COPS Office grant program by amending the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends the statutory language governing Byrne (JAG) and COPS grants to include the purchase and operation of UAS among eligible grant uses. It references the federal statutory definition of UAS in 49 U.S.C. 44801 rather than creating a new definition.
Who It Affects
Local and state law-enforcement agencies, emergency-response organizations, and other grant recipients that currently receive or seek Byrne/JAG or COPS funding are directly affected. DOJ grant managers and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services must update program guidance.
Why It Matters
This change formally opens existing federal public-safety funding streams to drone acquisition and operations without adding program-specific oversight, privacy safeguards, or dedicated appropriations — potentially accelerating UAS adoption while leaving implementation details to DOJ guidance and recipients.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H.R. 1058 is short and narrowly focused: it changes the lists of allowable uses in two long-standing DOJ grant statutes so recipients may buy and operate unmanned aircraft systems for public-safety purposes. Rather than creating a new grant program or funding line, the bill edits statutory text in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, making UAS an eligible expenditure under both Byrne and COPS awards.
The bill does not define ‘‘unmanned aircraft systems’’ itself; it points to the existing federal definition in title 49, section 44801. Because the bill relies on that cross-reference, recipients will need to consult both the DOJ grant rules and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations to understand which platforms and operations qualify and what certifications or waivers are necessary for flight operations.Operationally, the statute-authorized change affects procurement, budgeting, and grant-application strategy.
Agencies that already apply for Byrne or COPS funds can request money for UAS hardware, software, training, and operational costs where those costs fit the grant program’s objectives. But the text does not attach oversight mechanisms, privacy protections, reporting requirements, or additional appropriations to the new eligible use — those implementation details fall to DOJ guidance, grant conditions, and existing federal and state law.Finally, because the amendments expand eligible expenditures rather than set aside new money, adoption depends on grant priorities set by DOJ and choices by local recipients.
Agencies with existing grant relationships can integrate UAS into their public-safety plans quickly, but practical deployment will still require FAA compliance, local policy development, training, maintenance budgets, and decisions about data retention and third-party service providers.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends two statutory provisions—section 501(a)(1) (Byrne) and section 1701(b) (COPS) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968—to add UAS purchase and operation as eligible uses.
H.R. 1058 does not create new grant money; it permits existing Byrne/JAG and COPS funds to be used for acquiring and operating UAS.
The bill relies on the UAS definition in 49 U.S.C. 44801 instead of defining covered aircraft or operations itself.
The statutory change authorizes both acquisition and operational expenditures, which can cover equipment, software, training, and recurring operational costs under applicable grant rules.
The text contains no federal privacy, civil-liberties, reporting, or use-policy requirements tied to UAS use; oversight and conditions would come through DOJ grant guidance or other law.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act's short title: the Directing Resources for Officers Navigating Emergencies Act of 2025 (DRONE Act of 2025). This is a naming provision only and has no substantive legal effect on program administration.
Byrne/JAG eligible uses — add UAS
Amends the list of allowable Byrne grant program activities (codified at 34 U.S.C. 10152(a)(1) as part of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act) to include programs to purchase and operate unmanned aircraft systems. Practically, this means applicants and recipients can propose UAS-related projects within their Byrne-funded proposals, subject to the normal grant application, award, and allowable-cost rules that govern Byrne funds.
COPS eligible uses — add UAS
Inserts an explicit allowance for purchasing and operating unmanned aircraft systems into the enumerated uses of COPS Office grant funds (34 U.S.C. 10381(b)). The bill makes a targeted textual change by adding a new paragraph to the statutory list; it does not alter other COPS priorities, funding formulas, or statutory grant authorities beyond expanding eligible expenditures to include UAS-related costs.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Local and state law-enforcement agencies — They can use existing Byrne/JAG and COPS grant funds to buy drones, sensors, and supporting systems and to pay for training and operations, accelerating field deployment without waiting for separate federal appropriations.
- Emergency-management and public-safety operators — Agencies that coordinate disaster response, search-and-rescue, or scene management can integrate aerial surveillance and mapping capabilities into grant-funded programs, potentially improving situational awareness.
- UAS manufacturers and service providers — The change expands a government purchasing channel, increasing market opportunities for vendors that supply platforms, sensors, software, and training tailored to public-safety missions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local governments and grant recipients — While grants may cover acquisition and some operations, recipients must budget for long-term maintenance, replacement cycles, insurance, and staff time if grant periods and amounts don’t match lifecycle costs.
- Department of Justice — DOJ must update program guidance, manage applications that include UAS components, and likely enforce compliance and allowable-cost rules without additional appropriations, increasing administrative workload.
- Federal Aviation Administration and regulatory partners — Widespread adoption by public-safety agencies increases demand for FAA airspace authorizations, certifications, and coordination; that demand may create scheduling and compliance burdens for agencies and the FAA.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between enabling rapid adoption of aerial capabilities for public safety and protecting civil liberties, fiscal sustainability, and aviation safety: the bill lowers the financial barrier to entry but does not set uniform safeguards or funding for long-term operation, creating a trade-off between operational effectiveness and oversight/accountability.
The bill is narrowly drafted to expand eligible grant expenditures but leaves critical implementation questions unanswered. It cross-references the federal definition of UAS, which means FAA classifications and operational restrictions will govern what kinds of aircraft and flights are feasible; however, the statute does not address necessary authorizations, waivers, or airspace coordination.
Separately, H.R. 1058 does not include statutory privacy, data-retention, auditing, or community-notification requirements. That gap means recipients could deploy systems under existing grant terms without uniform federal standards unless DOJ imposes conditions in grant guidance.
Another unresolved issue is lifecycle funding. Grant awards often cover capital purchases or short-term operations but not indefinite maintenance, software subscriptions, or replacement batteries and sensors.
Agencies that equip themselves via these grants may face unfunded recurring costs that strain operating budgets. Finally, expanding allowable uses may reallocate discretionary priorities within finite Byrne and COPS dollars, producing trade-offs between traditional personnel/technology investments and new UAS spending — a choice the bill leaves to DOJ and local decisionmakers rather than Congress.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.