The SAFER SKIES Act amends 6 U.S.C. 124n to allow the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice to take counter‑UAS actions and, for the first time, to permit State, local, Tribal, and territorial (SLTT) law‑enforcement and correctional agencies to do the same once certified. The bill defines what mitigation actions are covered, requires a jointly maintained list of authorized technologies, and makes SLTT use contingent on completion of a national training and certification program run by the Attorney General in coordination with DHS.
Beyond operational authority, the bill layers compliance and oversight: SLTT agencies must notify DHS and DOJ within 48 hours of any mitigation, are subject to periodic compliance audits, and are included in biannual unclassified reports (with classified annexes). It also opens certain federal grant programs to fund UAS and counter‑UAS purchases, raises criminal penalties related to malicious drone use, creates civil penalties for unauthorized counter‑UAS actions, and sets statutory sunsets for the new authorities.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Act extends statutory permission to use counter‑UAS measures to certified SLTT law‑enforcement and correctional agencies, authorizes DHS and DOJ to deploy counter‑UAS capabilities, and establishes processes for training, technology authorization, notifications, oversight, and reporting. It also amends grant rules to permit funding for UAS and listed counter‑UAS systems, and increases penalties for certain drone‑related crimes and unauthorized counter‑UAS actions.
Who It Affects
Directly affected entities include SLTT law‑enforcement and correctional agencies (and their personnel), DHS and DOJ operational units, the FAA, FCC and NTIA as technology and airspace partners, manufacturers of counter‑UAS systems, operators of events and critical infrastructure, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Private drone operators and prison operators are also implicated through forfeiture and enhanced penalties.
Why It Matters
This bill shifts some counter‑drone responsibilities from federal-only execution to a federated model with national standards—creating new operational capacity at the local level while centralizing certification and technology authorization. That changes procurement demand for counter‑UAS vendors, creates new compliance obligations for SLTT agencies, and raises significant aviation safety and civil‑liberties implementation questions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core change is an expansion of the Homeland Security Act’s counter‑UAS authority. DHS and DOJ retain and clarify their ability to mitigate drone threats, but SLTT law‑enforcement and correctional agencies may also exercise specified mitigation measures once they complete a national training and certification program.
The statute specifically carves out potential conflicts with several criminal and aviation statutes so that authorized mitigation actions are not second‑guessed by those provisions, subject to the bill’s training, technology, and oversight rules.
Training, certification, and authorized technologies are tightly linked. The Attorney General, working with DHS and other agencies, must set up procedures within 180 days and operate a national schoolhouse as the sole certifying authority for SLTT personnel who will implement counter‑UAS measures.
SLTT use is limited to technologies that appear on a jointly‑maintained authorized‑technology list (DoJ, DHS, DoD, DoT, FCC, and NTIA). Agencies exercising authority must notify DOJ and DHS within 48 hours of any mitigation and will be included in biannual reports describing deployments, technologies used, and any aviation safety incidents.The Act also changes funding and enforcement.
Byrne and other DOJ grant statutes are amended to permit purchases of unmanned aircraft and listed counter‑UAS systems. Criminal penalties increase for repeated or instrumented misuse of drones—statutory language raises maximum terms and directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to increase guideline levels for drone‑related offenses.
Separately, an unauthorized counter‑UAS deployment can trigger civil fines up to $100,000 per violation or suspension of authority; the Attorney General may sue to collect fines. Finally, the legislation contains two sunsets: general counter‑UAS authority terminates September 30, 2031, and SLTT authority terminates December 31, 2031, and it requires a plan for reimbursing federal agencies that protect non‑federal events.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SLTT agencies may use counter‑UAS measures only after completing Attorney General‑certified training delivered through a national schoolhouse and meeting procedures the AG must issue within 180 days of enactment.
Technologies available to SLTT deployments are limited to systems on a joint authorized‑technology list maintained by DOJ, DHS, DoD, DoT, FCC, and NTIA; use of unlisted tools is not permitted.
Any SLTT mitigation action must be reported to the Attorney General and DHS within 48 hours with date, location, threat description, mitigation type, and operational effects; DOJ/DHS will accept submissions through a secure mechanism.
Unauthorized counter‑UAS actions (i.e.
without required Federal coordination) expose the actor to civil fines up to $100,000 per violation or suspension of authority and civil enforcement by the Attorney General.
The Act raises criminal exposure for malicious drone use—doubling or adding up to 5 years to sentences in some contexts, adds a felony maximum for repeat violations in national defense airspace, and directs the Sentencing Commission to increase offense levels (at least +6 levels where enhanced penalties apply).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the bill the "SAFER SKIES Act." This is a labeling provision that does not affect substance but is how the amendments will be cited in statutory text and later references.
Expansion of counter‑UAS authority to SLTT and clarification for federal agencies
Rewrites subsection (a) to state explicitly that DHS and DOJ may take and authorize personnel to take counter‑UAS actions notwithstanding certain federal statutes, and adds a separate clause authorizing SLTT law‑enforcement and correctional agencies to exercise similar authorities (subject to training and certification). Practically, this creates two parallel authority tracks—federal and SLTT—each with work rules, but makes SLTT exercise conditional on the certification regime later described.
National certification, restricted tech list, 48‑hour notification, and state forfeiture
Adds a required national training and certification program run by the Attorney General (in coordination with DHS, DoD and DoT) and establishes the AG’s national schoolhouse as the sole certifying authority for SLTT officers. It requires a jointly maintained authorized‑technology list; SLTT agencies may use only listed systems. SLTT agencies must notify DOJ and DHS within 48 hours after any mitigation; the bill mandates a secure submission mechanism. The text also clarifies that drones seized by SLTT agencies are subject to forfeiture under the seizing jurisdiction’s laws, which imports state forfeiture regimes into counter‑UAS seizures.
Audits, biannual reporting, and oversight roles for DOJ/DHS/FAA
Creates an oversight chain: the AG, in coordination with DHS and the FAA, will oversee compliance with statutory requirements and periodically audit certified SLTT agencies. It requires an initial report within one year and biannual unclassified reports with classified annexes to Congress covering training implementation, the list of certified agencies, the authorized‑technology list, deployment frequency and circumstances, aviation incidents arising from deployments, and recommendations for improvement. That reporting structure builds a data trail for congressional review and future rule adjustments.
Statutory carve‑outs, key definitions, and expiration dates
Provides non‑application language clarifying that certain criminal and aviation statutes do not bar mitigation activities when carried out under the section. It tightens definitions for personnel, correctional facility, and critical infrastructure, and it inserts explicit sunsets: general counter‑UAS authority ends September 30, 2031, and SLTT authority ends December 31, 2031. Those termination dates create a hard timeframe for assessing program performance and legislative renewal.
Permits federal grants to buy UAS and listed counter‑UAS systems
Amends Byrne/Justice grant statutes to allow recipients to use funds to purchase or operate unmanned aircraft systems and counter‑UAS systems that appear on the authorized‑technology list. This creates federal funding pathways for SLTT procurements but couples eligibility to the same authorized‑technology limitations imposed on operational use.
New criminal enhancements and civil penalties for misuse
Introduces harsher criminal penalties for repeat offenses in protected airspace and for using drones to facilitate felonies or smuggle contraband into prisons; it directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to raise guideline levels (specified minimum level increases). It also creates civil enforcement authority for the Attorney General to collect fines up to $100,000 per unauthorized counter‑UAS violation and to suspend counter‑UAS authority pending review. The provision is effective 30 days after enactment.
Regulations, FAA coordination, and periodic compliance audits
Directs DOJ and DHS, in coordination with DoD and DoT, to publish regulations within 180 days governing SLTT counter‑UAS authority; the FAA must be involved for any aviation safety impacts. The section requires the AG and DHS to set training standards, approve training programs, and perform compliance audits to detect misuse. It also defines SLTT and correctional agencies for implementation clarity.
Plan for reimbursing federal counter‑UAS protection at non‑federal events
Requires DOJ and DHS to deliver to Congress, within 180 days of enactment, a plan to establish a reimbursement program to compensate federal agencies when they provide counter‑UAS protection for events not organized or operated by the federal government. The plan’s design will affect cost allocation between federal and non‑federal event operators.
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, local, Tribal, and territorial law‑enforcement agencies — Gain statutory authority to mitigate drone threats and access to federal grants for UAS and approved counter‑UAS equipment once personnel complete national certification, expanding local operational options.
- Correctional facilities and corrections agencies — Receive explicit statutory permission to counter drones used to smuggle contraband and may procure listed counter‑UAS systems with grant support; enhanced criminal penalties also strengthen enforcement tools against drone‑assisted prison crimes.
- Counter‑UAS and UAS vendors — The authorized‑technology list and new grant eligibility create a definable market and procurement pathway; vendors with approved products stand to gain federal and SLTT customers.
- Owners/operators of large venues and critical infrastructure — Stand to get faster, local mitigation options for drone threats and potential access to federal reimbursement when federal assets protect non‑federal events.
- DHS and DOJ — Centralized certification, reporting, and oversight increase situational awareness of counter‑UAS deployments nationwide and create a statutory structure for managing technology and safety standards.
Who Bears the Cost
- SLTT law‑enforcement and correctional agencies — Must invest time and resources to send personnel through AG‑certified training, comply with reporting and audit requirements, and restrict procurements to the authorized‑technology list.
- Federal aviation regulators and civilian airspace users — Face added integration burdens, increased safety review demands, and potential operational interruptions when counter‑UAS measures are deployed near active airspace.
- Private drone operators and hobbyists — Face greater seizure and forfeiture risk, higher criminal exposure for repeat or malicious conduct, and possible collateral losses when counter‑UAS actions cause crashes or property damage.
- Federal agencies (DOJ, DHS, FAA, NTIA, FCC) — Must staff and resource the national schoolhouse, jointly manage the tech list, conduct audits and rulemaking, and produce biannual reports; the bill also contemplates reimbursement mechanics that will require interagency budget and policy work.
- Event organizers and non‑federal critical infrastructure owners — Could see increased expectations to coordinate with certified local agencies and potentially bear costs if the reimbursement program does not fully cover federal protection expenses.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is this: give certified local authorities the power to stop dangerous drones quickly, or preserve a tight, federally managed control over airspace and countermeasures to minimize aviation safety and civil‑liberties risks. Decentralizing operational authority improves responsiveness but increases the chance of unsafe or inconsistent use; centralizing oversight reduces misuse but can slow local responses to imminent threats.
Implementation hinges on a set of administrative choices that the statute delegates to DOJ, DHS, DoD, DoT, FAA, FCC, and NTIA. The authorized‑technology list is the gatekeeper for SLTT deployment and for grant‑funded procurements; how restrictive that list is, how quickly it is updated, and whether it favors certain technical approaches (jamming, spoofing, kinetic recovery) will determine both effectiveness and risk to civilian aviation systems.
The national schoolhouse model centralizes certification, which reduces variation in training but concentrates responsibility and cost at the federal level; it also raises questions about throughput and access for smaller agencies.
The bill’s interaction with state forfeiture law imports uneven property‑and‑forfeiture regimes into a national security context: seized drones may be processed under different state standards, producing inconsistent outcomes and potential litigation. The 48‑hour notification and biannual reporting requirements create transparency but may not alone prevent operational mistakes that temporarily disrupt aviation or communications.
Finally, the statutory sunsets place a finite horizon on the program, which encourages evaluation but could create discontinuities in protection and procurement if Congress does not act before termination dates.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.