This bill establishes a federal framework — led by the Department of Homeland Security in coordination with the Attorney General and the FAA — to permit State law enforcement to acquire, deploy, and operate approved counter‑UAS (unmanned aircraft system) mitigation systems. It sets an application and agreement process, requires post‑event reporting, creates a mandatory non‑emergency deconfliction database for drone transponder IDs, and authorizes a grant program to fund state acquisitions and training.
The policy is consequential because it shifts tangible counter‑drone capabilities out of an exclusively federal domain into hands of State and local agencies under federally imposed limits. That raises practical questions about airspace safety, spectrum interference, privacy and communications intercepts, and how federal oversight and revocation authority will work in fast‑moving emergency situations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires DHS (with DOJ and FAA) to build an application, approval, and written‑agreement process authorizing State law enforcement to operate approved counter‑UAS detection and mitigation systems. It authorizes specific countermeasures — including detection, electronic warnings, disruption or seizure of control links, physical seizure, and use of reasonable force to disable or destroy UAS — and mandates FCC/NTIA consultation on spectrum impacts.
Who It Affects
State law enforcement and emergency management agencies that seek to procure counter‑UAS systems, the Department of Homeland Security, the FAA, the Department of Justice, telecom and spectrum managers, drone manufacturers and operators, and grant administrators responsible for awarding and monitoring procurement funds.
Why It Matters
The bill turns an operational question — who can disable or seize a drone — into a regulated program with federal standards, real procurement funding, and post‑event accountability. For compliance officers and security planners, it creates new procurement, training, reporting, and interagency coordination obligations and introduces statutory carveouts from some federal interception statutes for covered operations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The LANDED Act creates a permissioned pathway for State law enforcement to get hands‑on counter‑drone tools, but only after federal review and a written agreement. DHS must design an application process and enter into agreements that spell out what device is authorized, when and where it may be used, safety and public‑safety conditions, periodic federal site visits, and specific post‑event reporting expectations.
The statute explicitly allows delegation to local police where appropriate, but the written agreement remains the control instrument that governs use.
When the agreement and approvals are in place, authorized personnel may employ a set of enumerated actions during a UAS incident: detect and track UAS (including intercepting control communications), issue warnings by electronic or physical means, disrupt or seize control links, take physical custody of the aircraft, and — if necessary — disable or destroy it with reasonable force. The bill accomplishes this by creating a statutory exception (“notwithstanding” several federal statutes) so covered providers can perform activities that otherwise might run afoul of federal communications or property statutes; it pairs that carveout with required privacy protections referenced to existing Homeland Security Act provisions.The Act also addresses safety and spectrum management.
The FAA must make location‑specific airspace determinations to ensure counter‑UAS use will not impair safe national airspace operations — and can render an agency ineligible for counter‑UAS operations where an adverse impact cannot be mitigated. DHS, DOJ, and FAA must consult the FCC or NTIA about potential effects on civilian communications.
For the first 180 days after a particular mitigation capability becomes available, DHS must personally approve each mitigation action on a case‑by‑case basis and immediately notify the FAA to allow close oversight during the initial deployment phase.Operational transparency is built into the program: any covered mitigation must trigger a post‑event report to DHS, the FAA, and DOJ within 24 hours that includes details the Secretary specifies. The bill creates a mandatory non‑emergency deconfliction mechanism — a searchable database of transponder IDs and timestamps — so agencies can check whether a drone is part of an authorized non‑emergency operation.
Finally, the Act establishes a Counter‑UAS Security Grant Program to fund acquisition and training, makes awarded funds available for at least 24 months, and orders an expedited DoD Inspector General review of foreign‑connected UAS activity with reporting to multiple congressional committees.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 3 authorizes specific countermeasures — including intercepting radio or electronic control links, disrupting control signals, seizing or exercising control of UAS, and using reasonable force to disable or destroy a UAS — when a State law enforcement agency is approved under the bill’s process.
For the first 180 days after a mitigation capability’s initial deployment, DHS must approve each State mitigation action on a case‑by‑case basis and immediately notify the FAA, creating an intensified federal oversight window.
Post‑event reporting is mandatory: a State law enforcement agency must submit a detailed report to DHS, the FAA, and the Attorney General within 24 hours of any mitigation action, with contents defined by the Secretary.
Section 4 creates a mandatory non‑emergency deconfliction database containing drones’ transponder IDs and timestamps so Federal, State, and local agencies can verify whether a transponder is currently authorized for non‑emergency operations.
Section 6 establishes a Counter‑UAS Security Grant Program permitting grant funds to be used for acquisition of approved systems, training fees, and related administrative costs, with grants usable for a minimum 24‑month period.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and baseline scope
This section imports the statutory definitions from 49 U.S.C. § 44801 and adds program‑specific terms: what counts as an approved counter‑UAS detection system and how the statute defines a threatening UAS. That matters because later authorization, eligibility, and reporting trace back to these definitions — for example, whether an activity qualifies as a ‘threat’ that justifies mitigation.
Approval, agreements, and operational authorities for State agencies
Section 3 lays out the heart of the program: DHS (working with DOJ and FAA) must create an application route, evaluate requests, and enter written agreements that specify the exact kit being used, the authorized response authority (what actions are allowed), the occasions and geographic limits for use, safety conditions, periodic federal inspections, and post‑event reporting. The statute also expressly authorizes certain actions that would otherwise risk violating federal communications or property laws, but it conditions continued authorization on maintaining an acceptable agreement and complying with privacy protections; failure can trigger revocation.
Mandatory deconfliction reporting and transponder database
This section requires creation of a mandatory, non‑emergency reporting mechanism and searchable database that records a drone’s transponder ID and the date/time it is being used for non‑emergency operations. The goal is to reduce mistaken mitigation by giving agencies a way to confirm whether a nearby drone is part of an authorized operation, but it depends on accurate transponder use by drone operators and timely database queries by enforcement personnel.
Rapid federal response to emergencies
Section 5 authorizes DHS to act swiftly to assist a State during a UAS emergency and requires DHS to develop a rapid‑response process. This is a discretionary operational backstop, designed to supplement State capabilities when an incident exceeds local capacity or creates significant immediate risk.
Counter‑UAS Security Grant Program
This section creates a DHS grant program administered by the Administrator to subsidize State law enforcement acquisitions, training, and related administrative expenses for approved counter‑UAS systems. Grants must be usable for at least 24 months, and eligible recipients are State law enforcement agencies; the statute leaves the grant formula, award criteria, and matching requirements to the Administrator’s implementing guidance.
DoD Inspector General review and reporting
Section 7 directs the DoD Inspector General to review foreign‑adversary connected UAS activity affecting military installations, vessels, aircraft, and the homeland and to report to multiple congressional committees within 90 days. The report must be unclassified with a classified annex available, and it covers incidents, information‑sharing failures with Congress, DoD deployments to assist civil authorities, and an analysis of near‑peer capabilities.
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 law enforcement agencies: Gain an authorized path to acquire and operate counter‑UAS tools and training funded in part by federal grants, allowing them to address local UAS threats without waiting for federal response.
- Emergency management agencies and critical infrastructure operators: Benefit indirectly from faster, local mitigation capacity that can reduce downtime and physical risk at facilities like stadiums, power plants, and ports.
- Manufacturers of counter‑UAS systems and integrators: See increased procurement opportunities from a federally enabled market for approved systems and long‑term sustainment work tied to grant funding and training contracts.
- FAA and federal aviation safety planners: Receive structured situational reports and a deconfliction database that, if used reliably, can reduce dangerous interactions between mitigation actions and manned aviation.
- Federal oversight entities and Congress: Gain standardized, auditable reporting (24‑hour post‑event reports and DoD IG review) to monitor how and when mitigation tools are used.
Who Bears the Cost
- Telecommunications carriers and spectrum managers: Face increased risk that counter‑UAS electronic mitigation will cause harmful interference to civilian communications, requiring time and resources for mitigation consultations and potential remediation.
- State and local budgets and compliance offices: Must absorb training, administrative, and program‑management costs (even with grants), maintain federal agreements, and manage detailed post‑event reporting and site visits.
- Drone operators and commercial UAV service providers: Suffer higher compliance and operational friction from mandatory transponder reporting and the risk their lawful flights could be wrongly disrupted or seized if the database or checks fail.
- DHS, FAA, and DOJ operational staffs: Incur new responsibilities — application review, site visits, 180‑day case approvals, and revocation processes — that require staffing, technical expertise, and coordination across agencies.
- Civil liberties and privacy compliance units: Bear the burden of interpreting and enforcing the bill’s privacy protections and handling complaints where mitigations involved interception or seizure of communications.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate goals against one another: the need for rapid, effective local action to stop dangerous drones versus the need to protect airspace safety, spectrum integrity, and civil liberties; giving State actors robust mitigation powers increases operational responsiveness but requires federal limits and oversight to contain risks that those same powers will harm unrelated aircraft, civilian communications, or privacy.
The bill solves an operational gap — how to get counter‑UAS tools to on‑the‑ground responders — by creating a federalized permission structure. That design trades decisional speed for oversight: written agreements, FAA location assessments, and a 180‑day initial case‑by‑case federal approval window introduce safety checks but will also slow deployment in some scenarios.
The statutory carveouts that permit interception of control signals and other communications remove important legal barriers to effective mitigation, but they build effectiveness on a fragile foundation: adequate privacy safeguards, clear rules about data handling, and tight technical controls to avoid collateral interference with civilian radio and cellular networks.
Implementation hinges on several hard administrative tasks that the bill leaves underspecified. The Secretary and the Administrator must turn broad statutory lists (e.g., permitted actions, safety protocols, post‑event report contents, and grant award criteria) into operational guidance and contracts.
Those choices — how conservative airspace determinations are, what constitutes acceptable privacy safeguards under the cited Homeland Security Act provision, the technical criteria for “approved” systems, and the thresholds for revocation — will determine whether state deployments are safe, lawful, and interoperable or whether they become sources of litigation, spectrum outages, or inconsistent regional practices. Finally, the deconfliction database depends on reliable transponder use by drones and timely queries by agencies; without high data quality and clear sanctions for misuse, it risks being both incomplete and a new single point of failure.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.