The Secure Our Skies Drone Safety Act of 2025 directs the Comptroller General to study and report to Congress on government use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and on systems developed to counter them. The study covers Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies and asks the GAO to identify legal, policy, procurement, and manufacturing gaps that affect how those agencies acquire and deploy UAS and counter-UAS technologies.
This report is designed to give Congress a single, evidence-based snapshot of fielded UAS and countermeasures, potential supply-chain risks from foreign vendors, training and privacy practices, and barriers to buying domestically produced systems. For practitioners, the bill signals forthcoming federal attention to procurement rules, intergovernmental coordination, and regulatory clarity around counter-drone tools.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the Comptroller General to complete a study and submit a report to Congress within one year of enactment. The report must include recommendations on legal authorities and actions to bolster U.S. and allied UAS manufacturing and to simplify procurement, plus a set of enumerated data points about UAS ownership, origin, usage, training, policies, privacy protections, and countermeasures.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies and committees that oversee aviation, homeland security, and procurement will get the report; State, local, and Tribal law enforcement and public-safety agencies are the primary subjects of the data collection. UAS manufacturers and vendors — particularly those with foreign supply chains — should expect increased scrutiny of origin and procurement practices.
Why It Matters
The bill consolidates fragmented information about drone use and counter-drone capabilities into a single congressional briefing, creating the basis for statutory or budgetary changes. For compliance officers and procurement teams, the report could presage stricter sourcing rules, new certification expectations, or changes to funding priorities for domestic production.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act itself is short and procedural: it orders the Comptroller General to study how government entities use drones and the tools they use against drones, and to return a report with recommendations. That report is meant to do two jobs at once — identify where legal or policy obstacles block effective counter-UAS responses, and map the marketplace for UAS so Congress can spot supply-chain or procurement vulnerabilities.
Operationally, the GAO will need to survey a wide range of actors — Federal departments with aviation and security roles, State and local law enforcement agencies that fly or buy drones, and Tribal authorities. To be useful, the study will have to reconcile inconsistent recordkeeping across jurisdictions (for example, different procurement codes, grant-funded purchases, and donations) and should combine quantitative counts with qualitative descriptions of how and why agencies use UAS and countermeasures.The bill specifies a long list of discrete data points the GAO must collect — from the number of fielded UAS and the country of supplier origin to whether operators receive training and what privacy safeguards are in place.
That mix means the final product will likely include both a statistical inventory and a policy gap analysis, designed to support legislative or administrative fixes such as procurement reform, export-control adjustments, or new training standards.Finally, because the Act explicitly asks for recommendations on manufacturing and procurement simplification, the GAO will be expected to consider industrial policy elements: whether federal incentives, grant programs, or changes to contracting rules could accelerate domestic production, and what trade-offs that would imply for cost and capability availability. The report will therefore be a resource not just for homeland security oversight but for procurement officers and supply-chain planners deciding how to source UAS and counter-UAS equipment.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Comptroller General must complete the study and submit the report to Congress within one year of the Act’s enactment.
The report must include recommendations on what legal authorities or policies need changing to improve agencies’ ability to counter UAS threats and on actions to boost U.S. and allied UAS manufacturing and simplify procurement.
The GAO must inventory the number of UAS deployed by Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies and identify how many were purchased from entities located in nations listed under 15 C.F.R. § 791.4 (the bill’s referenced 'adversarial nation' list).
The study must assess non-operational items such as domestic production shares, cost barriers that limit buying U.S.-made or non-adversary-sourced UAS, training or certification of UAS and counter-UAS operators, and privacy practices.
The GAO must catalog existing counter-UAS technologies and strategies in use and report whether training or certification exists for those countermeasures.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This single-line provision names the Act the 'Secure Our Skies Drone Safety Act of 2025.' It has no operative effect beyond providing a label for the statute and indicates the bill is focused on security and safety issues related to UAS.
Mandate for recommendations on authorities and industrial base
Paragraph (1) instructs the Comptroller General to make recommendations about two discrete policy areas: changes to legal authorities or policies that would improve agencies’ ability to counter UAS threats (subparagraph (A)), and actions to strengthen domestic and allied UAS manufacturing while simplifying procurement (subparagraph (B)). Practically, GAO will need to examine statutory and regulatory constraints (for example, criminal law, aviation rules, communications statutes, or procurement regulations) and propose concrete fixes — which could range from model state policies to federal procurement incentives or adjustments to export-control regimes.
Enumerated information GAO must collect
Paragraph (2) lists nine specific data points (2(A)–(I)) that the GAO must include in the report. These span quantitative counts (numbers of UAS, domestic production shares), origin tracking (purchases from entities in nations referenced in 15 C.F.R. § 791.4), usage patterns (how often and for what missions), governance (authorities, policies, protocols), human capital (training/certification of operators), privacy expectations, and inventory of countermeasures and related training. For practitioners, this clause means the GAO’s work will not be purely descriptive: it is designed to surface gaps that can be corrected through statute, rulemaking, guidance, or procurement practice changes.
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
- Congressional oversight committees — Receive an evidence-based inventory and recommendations to inform statutory or funding changes related to UAS policy and procurement.
- Domestic UAS manufacturers and the U.S. defense-industrial base — Could gain from recommendations to bolster domestic production and simplify procurement, potentially increasing demand for U.S.-made systems.
- Privacy and civil-liberties groups — Benefit indirectly through the bill’s requirement to catalog privacy protections and expectations, which can prompt clearer policies or guardrails.
- State, local, and Tribal agencies that rely on clear procurement guidance — Stand to gain clearer sourcing rules and potential access to funding or procurement pathways that prioritize vetted suppliers.
Who Bears the Cost
- State, local, and Tribal agencies — Face the burden of responding to GAO data requests, compiling procurement and operational records, and possibly following new procurement or training requirements that increase administrative or acquisition costs.
- Comptroller General/GAO resources — The agency must allocate staff and time to conduct a broad, intergovernmental study within a one-year window, potentially diverting resources from other audits.
- Vendors from countries identified under 15 C.F.R. § 791.4 — May face market exclusion or reputational risk if the report triggers procurement restrictions tied to origin.
- Procurement offices and contracting officers — May incur implementation costs if Congress or agencies act on GAO recommendations to revise contracting rules or create domestic-preference mechanisms.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between producing a transparent, actionable inventory that supports national security and policy change, and protecting operational sensitivity and local autonomy; strengthening domestic supply chains or restricting foreign-sourced equipment can improve security but raise costs and reduce procurement flexibility for underfunded local agencies.
The bill is deliberately diagnostic: it requires a comprehensive compilation of data and recommendations but does not itself change any legal authorities or impose procurement restrictions. That raises two implementation questions.
First, the GAO’s ability to produce meaningful, comparable data depends on cooperation from hundreds of jurisdictions with inconsistent recordkeeping and varying willingness to share sensitive information. Local agencies may not track supplier origin at the level the GAO requests (for example, when purchases are made via grant programs, donations, or commercial resellers), creating data gaps that reduce the study’s precision.
Second, the statute asks for recommendations touching on procurement, industrial policy, and legal authorities without prioritizing trade-offs. Recommendations to favor domestic production or tighten sourcing rules can conflict with local budget constraints and the operational need to source capable systems quickly.
Likewise, cataloging counter-UAS capabilities may expose techniques or tools that, if publicly detailed, could be circumvented by adversaries. The GAO will need to balance transparency with operational security when drafting its public report, and Congress will face difficult choices on whether to accept recommendations that shift costs or constrain local flexibility.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.