The DEFENSE Act would authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General to deputize state or local law enforcement officers to protect certain events by enforcing temporary flight restrictions. The new stadium-security provision expands the authority to cover sites under existing flight restrictions, eligible large public gatherings, or other protected gatherings at FAA discretion, with mandatory training, federal oversight, and a predefined list of authorized equipment for unmanned aircraft system (UAS) detection and tracking.
The bill ties these counter-drone powers to existing aviation-security authorities and coordinates closely with the Transportation Department and FAA to maintain safety and accountability around event security.
At a Glance
What It Does
Authorizes deputization of state/local officers to enforce flight-restriction rules at specific events, limited to counter-UAS activities and tied to existing TFRs or large gatherings. Requires training and federal oversight; restricts equipment to an approved list.
Who It Affects
State and local law enforcement tasked with stadium security, event organizers, and venues hosting large public gatherings; federal partners (DHS, DOJ, DOT, FAA) coordinating oversight and training; UAS technology vendors supplying compliant equipment.
Why It Matters
Creates a formal, cross-agency framework for counter-UAS at major events, with defined training, oversight, and equipment standards to reduce security risks while limiting scope to protect civil liberties and avoid mission creep.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The DEFENSE Act introduces a specialized program to bolster event security around large gatherings and venues protected by flight restrictions. It would authorize DHS’s Secretary or the Attorney General to deputize state or local law enforcement officers to enforce those flight restrictions in the context of designated events, notably stadiums and other large public gatherings.
This deputization would be narrowly tailored to counter-drones and would require officers to complete specified training before they can exercise the authority. Federal oversight would be shared among DHS, the Department of Transportation, and the FAA to monitor how the authority is used.
In addition, the act would limit the equipment that can be deployed under this program to items on a Department-maintained list developed in coordination with DOJ, the FAA, the FCC, and NTIA. The overall design is to create a controlled, accountable mechanism for protecting events from drone-related threats without broadening authorities beyond clearly defined venues and circumstances.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a stadium-security deputization option under Section 210G(m).
Deputized officers may enforce flight restrictions solely for protected events.
Training is required before deputized officers can use the authority.
Oversight of usage is mandated in coordination with DHS, DOT, and the FAA.
Only authorized UAS detection/monitoring equipment can be used under this authority.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Authority to deputize for event security
The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may deputize state or local law enforcement officers to exercise the authority granted by subsection (a), but only for protecting sites and gatherings where a flight restriction is active or where the FAA-designated large public gathering rules apply. The deputy authority is thus expressly circumscribed to counter-UAS actions at those events.
Training requirement
Deputized officers must complete training in the use of the deputized authority before being authorized to act. The training standards are set by the Secretary or Attorney General in coordination with the Secretary of Transportation and the FAA Administrator, ensuring consistency with aviation-security practices.
Oversight
The Secretary or the Attorney General, in coordination with the Secretary of Transportation and the FAA Administrator, shall oversee how the deputized authority is used. This oversight is intended to ensure compliance, prevent overreach, and maintain interagency coordination during security operations at events.
Authorized equipment
Equipment used under this authority for UAS detection, identification, monitoring, or tracking must be drawn from an authorized list maintained by the Department in coordination with DOJ, the FAA, the FCC, and NTIA. This requirement is designed to standardize tools and prevent the deployment of unvetted or unsafe technologies.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Defense across all five countries.
Explore Defense 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
- State and local law enforcement agencies responsible for stadium and event security, which gain a formal pathway to counter-drone operations when protected by flight restrictions.
- Event organizers and stadium operators who rely on effective security at large gatherings and may benefit from standardized, supervised counter-UAS measures.
- Federal agencies coordinating aviation security (DHS, DOJ, DOT, FAA) through defined roles, training requirements, and oversight.
- UAS technology providers that offer compliant counter-drone detection and tracking systems, given clearer certification paths and interoperability.
- Public safety interoperability partners and emergency responders who operate during events and rely on secure airspace management.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local and state law enforcement agencies must allocate resources for training and potential equipment upgrades.
- Judicial and administrative overhead associated with ongoing federal oversight and reporting obligations.
- Jurisdictions may incur costs to implement procedures for deputized officers within existing security operations.
- Event organizers might face costs related to coordinating with deputized officers and ensuring compliance with the authorized equipment list.
- UAS technology vendors may face certification and conformity costs to meet the mandated standards.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing proactive event security with civil liberties and interagency boundaries: expanding local enforcement authority can improve protection against drone threats, but it risks overreach, uneven implementation, or friction with other federal aviation-safety powers.
The bill constructs a tightly scoped framework for deputizing local officers to conduct counter-UAS activities at designated events. While this can enhance security, it also concentrates authority within a limited set of scenarios and relies on a formal process for training, oversight, and equipment certification.
Key questions remain about funding, the precise process for selecting eligible events, and how concurrent authorities at the federal and local levels will interact in real time during security operations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.