This bill inserts a new FAA authority to enable State, local, territorial, and Tribal law enforcement to use approved counter‑unmanned aircraft system (counter‑UAS) technologies under FAA oversight. It pairs short‑term pilot programs — including a time‑limited program tied to the 2026 FIFA World Cup — with a pathway to permanent registration and use of approved systems, subject to equipment approval, training criteria, and reporting requirements.
The measure also creates explicit privacy and constitutional guardrails for interception or access to communications associated with unmanned aircraft systems and exempts specified federal statutes from applying to counter‑UAS activities taken under the new authority. The bill centralizes approvals with the FAA while requiring consultation with the FCC and NTIA and mandating periodic briefings to designated Congressional committees.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds a new section to Title 49 granting the FAA authority to authorize and oversee counter‑UAS operations by subfederal law enforcement, including detection, monitoring, seizure, and disruption of unmanned aircraft, and to run pilot programs that test equipment, procedures, and training. The FAA must approve equipment in consultation with FCC and NTIA, issue training criteria, and promulgate policies after pilot completion.
Who It Affects
Designates State, local, territorial, and Tribal law enforcement agencies as the primary actors authorized to operate approved counter‑UAS systems; also affects FAA, FCC, NTIA, grant administrators, event and facility operators identified as 'covered facilities or assets,' and manufacturers of counter‑UAS equipment.
Why It Matters
Shifts operational counter‑drone authority from a predominantly federal posture toward an FAA‑managed, nationally standardized program that empowers local agencies — a structural change that creates new markets for approved systems, new compliance obligations for law enforcement, and fresh constitutional and aviation‑safety questions about communications interception, interference, and record retention.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill adds a new statutory section directing the FAA to administer authority that lets state and local law enforcement detect, monitor, seize, disrupt, disable, or destroy unmanned aircraft and unmanned aircraft systems when those aircraft pose a credible threat. The FAA may also use those authorities itself for threat mitigation and to test counter‑UAS technologies, and it may intercept communications used to control UASs without the operator’s prior consent when necessary to carry out those actions.
Federal criminal and certain aviation‑safety statutes are carved out for activities taken under the new authority, but the bill requires the FAA to implement privacy and constitutional safeguards. Those safeguards instruct the FAA to limit interception or acquisition of communications to what is necessary, dispose of records promptly after mitigation unless retention is needed for investigation, prosecution, national defense, or is otherwise legally required, and to ensure compliance with the First and Fourth Amendments.The FAA must stand up two types of pilot programs: a general multi‑year pilot that can enroll up to 4,000 agencies across three years and a targeted, time‑limited pilot for jurisdictions hosting 2026 FIFA World Cup matches.
Agencies selected for pilots can use FAA‑approved counter‑UAS mitigation systems under direct FAA oversight, but only after submitting an application describing covered facilities, deployment plans, training, and local certifications. The FAA consults with the FCC and NTIA to approve equipment and set training standards, and agencies must certify compliance with privacy policies and report uses to the FAA.After the pilot phase ends, the bill creates a permanent registration pathway: law enforcement agencies that register with the FAA and gain approval for their equipment, plans, and training may operate approved counter‑UAS systems to mitigate credible threats at approved covered facilities.
The registration must include chief executive certification of covered facilities within the jurisdiction, and the FAA retains authority to revoke designations and set further guidance. The statute also authorizes use of existing law‑enforcement and event‑security grant funds to support acquisition, deployment, training, and operations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The FAA may intercept or otherwise access wire, oral, or electronic communications used to control an unmanned aircraft system without the operator’s prior consent when exercising the new counter‑UAS authorities.
The general pilot caps designations at 1,000 agencies in year one and up to 3,000 additional agencies in year two, with no more than 4,000 total agencies authorized across the 3‑year pilot period.
The FIFA World Cup pilot runs from March 1, 2026, through September 30, 2026, and is limited to no more than 40 designated agencies in host‑city jurisdictions.
The statute expressly suspends the applicability of section 46502 of Title 49 and several Title 18 provisions (including sections 32, 1030, 1367 and chapters 119 and 206) for activities authorized under the FAA’s new counter‑UAS authority.
Agencies must obtain FAA approval for specific counter‑UAS systems (in consultation with the FCC and NTIA), certify training and privacy policies before use, and report uses to the FAA and specified Congressional committees on a set schedule.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s short title: the Counter Drone State and Local Defender Act. This is the formal name you’ll see in subsequent citations and cross‑references.
FAA authority to detect, test, and mitigate UAS threats
Creates an FAA authority to take actions necessary to detect or mitigate credible UAS threats and to test counter‑UAS detection and mitigation systems. The FAA can itself detect, identify, monitor, and track UASs, and it is authorized to coordinate detection and mitigation in conjunction with State, local, Tribal, or territorial law enforcement.
Enumerated operational powers (seize, control, disrupt, destroy)
Specifies the concrete powers the FAA may authorize or exercise: intercepting communications used to control UAS, warning operators, seizing or exercising control over UAS, and disrupting, disabling, damaging, or destroying UASs. These powers are broad and include kinetic and non‑kinetic options and explicitly cover communications interception as a tool.
Statutory exemptions and privacy safeguards
States that certain statutes (an FAA provision and several Title 18 provisions) do not apply to activities authorized under the new section. It then imposes privacy controls: FAA must ensure actions comply with the First and Fourth Amendments; limit interception to what is necessary; promptly dispose of communications records unless retention is needed for prosecution, defense, or legal requirements; and may share non‑communications threat information with subfederal law enforcement during security operations.
General pilot program structure and purpose
Directs FAA to establish a general pilot to evaluate approved counter‑UAS mitigation systems at covered facilities and define policies, procedures and regulations for permanent authorization. The FAA must consult with FCC and NTIA on equipment approvals and with chiefs of designated agencies on consultation and designation.
How agencies get designated and the operational guardrails
Sets the application contents (deployment plans, lists of covered facilities, training proof, and local executive certifications), caps initial designations (1,000 first year; 3,000 second year; 4,000 total), provides revocation authority for the FAA, limits the pilot to three years after a 60‑day post‑enactment window, and requires agencies to use only FAA‑approved equipment and comply with FAA privacy certifications and training standards.
FIFA World Cup pilot, funding, and permanent registration
Launches a separate, expedited pilot tied to host‑city jurisdictions for the 2026 FIFA World Cup (March–September 2026) with up to 40 agencies, expedited application timing, and reporting obligations after termination. After pilot completion, the bill provides for a permanent authorization path: any properly registered law enforcement agency that meets FAA requirements can use approved systems under defined registration contents (deployment plans, certifications, training proof, and chief executive lists of covered assets). Funding may come from existing grants for law enforcement, anti‑terrorism, counter‑UAS security, transportation security, and World Cup program funds where applicable.
Definitions and interplay with other aviation terms
Adopts the Title 49 definitions by reference and defines ‘covered facility or asset’ as facilities identified as high‑risk by the local chief executive and approved by the FAA; also defines the Congressional committees that receive briefings. This links local threat identification with a federal approval role, which will matter in disputes over which sites qualify.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation 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
- Designated State, local, Tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies — gain a federally approved legal framework and equipment approvals that allow them to actively mitigate UAS threats to sensitive sites rather than waiting for federal action.
- Operators of approved counter‑UAS equipment and service providers — obtain a clearer market pathway because the FAA approval and training‑criteria process creates demand and an approval stamp that buyers will require.
- Owners and operators of designated covered facilities or assets (large venues, critical infrastructure, event hosts) — receive an additional layer of security authority designed to protect events and sites from disruptive or hostile UAS activity.
- FAA and federal communications agencies — get centralized oversight and a standardized process for approvals, reducing ad hoc, uncoordinated local deployments that can create national airspace hazards.
Who Bears the Cost
- UAS operators (recreational and commercial) — face the risk that their aircraft may be seized, disabled, or destroyed and that communications used to control their UAS may be intercepted, raising practical and legal exposure.
- Local law enforcement agencies (especially small and mid‑sized) — must meet FAA approval, training, reporting, and equipment standards, absorbing procurement, training, and ongoing compliance costs even if grant money is available but not guaranteed.
- Federal technical coordinators (FAA, FCC, NTIA) — face increased workload and coordination burdens related to equipment approvals, interference risk assessments, and frequency management.
- Civil liberties and privacy advocacy communities — may shoulder the cost of increased monitoring and potential litigation because the bill authorizes interception and broad countermeasures that could be contested in court.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill confronts a classic trade‑off: enabling rapid, local responses to dangerous or disruptive drones (which argues for decentralization and operational flexibility) versus ensuring constitutional protections, aviation safety, and national‑level coordination (which argues for strict limits, transparency, and central control). Empowering local actors solves speed and scale problems but creates risks of inconsistent application, civil‑liberties encroachment, and airspace interference that depend heavily on the FAA’s policy judgments and the technical rigor of equipment approvals.
The bill concentrates substantial discretion in the FAA: the Administrator defines what qualifies as a ‘credible threat,’ approves specific counter‑UAS technologies, sets training criteria, and decides when an agency’s designation should be revoked. That centralization helps standardize practice but makes FAA policy choices the principal determiner of how broadly counter‑UAS powers are deployed.
The exemptions from particular federal statutes are narrow in text but sweeping in effect: allowing interception and disruption activities without application of certain criminal statutes raises Fourth Amendment and wiretapping risks that the FAA is told to manage but not otherwise constrained by detailed procedural safeguards, warrants, or public transparency requirements.
Operationally, the bill authorizes actions (disruption, seizure, destruction, communications interception) that carry acute aviation‑safety and spectrum‑interference risks. The statute requires FAA to consult FCC and NTIA on approvals, but it does not prescribe specific technical safeguards, liability rules for collateral damage to third‑party aircraft or infrastructure, or public notice and redress mechanisms for affected UAS operators.
Funding is permissive and routed through existing grant accounts; absent dedicated funding, the roll‑out and equitable participation by under‑resourced jurisdictions may be uneven. Finally, the definition of covered facilities relies on local chief executives to identify “high‑risk” assets subject to FAA approval — a process that could invite political contestation or inconsistent protection across jurisdictions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.