The bill amends 6 U.S.C. 124n to allow the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General to deputize a State or local law enforcement officer to exercise the Department’s counter‑unmanned aircraft system (UAS) authority for the purpose of protecting certain events and locations. Deputization is limited to sites subject to statutory flight restrictions, eligible large public gatherings under 49 U.S.C. 44812(c), or other events covered by temporary flight restrictions at the FAA Administrator’s discretion.
The measure builds an operational framework: deputized officers must complete training specified by DHS or DOJ in coordination with DOT/FAA, their use of authority is subject to federal oversight, and any detection/identification/tracking equipment must appear on a DHS list created with DOJ, FAA, FCC, and NTIA. For event security planners, law enforcement leaders, and compliance officers, the bill reallocates tactical tools to the state/local level while centralizing technical approvals and interagency coordination.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds subsection (m) to 6 U.S.C. 124n giving DHS or the Attorney General authority to deputize state or local officers to use the Department’s counter‑UAS powers at specified events and locations. It conditions deputization on completion of federally specified training, federal oversight, and use of only DHS‑approved detection/identification/tracking equipment.
Who It Affects
Stadiums and large public‑gathering venues protected by statutory flight restrictions or FAA temporary flight restrictions; state and local law enforcement agencies that might be deputized; the Federal Aviation Administration and federal communications regulators coordinating equipment and oversight; and vendors of UAS detection and monitoring systems.
Why It Matters
The bill decentralizes on‑site counter‑drone operations by empowering local officers while centralizing technical approval and interagency oversight. That changes operational responsibility, creates a single list for allowed technologies, and raises coordination, training, and liability questions for agencies and private operators.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new subsection into the Homeland Security Act and gives the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General the explicit power to deputize state or local law enforcement to carry out counter‑UAS activities under the Department’s existing authority. Deputization is narrow: it applies only when protecting sites that already have statutory flight restrictions, locations qualifying as large public gatherings under federal aviation law, or other events covered by FAA‑issued temporary flight restrictions.
That confines the new authority to discrete, high‑profile events rather than general law enforcement activity.
Deputization is conditional on training. The bill requires that only officers who complete training outlined by DHS or the Attorney General may be deputized, and it directs those federal officials to develop training in coordination with the Department of Transportation and the FAA.
In practice this means DHS/DOJ set the performance and curriculum standards while DOT/FAA input ensures alignment with airspace safety and FAA procedures.The statute also builds in federal oversight: DHS or DOJ must oversee how deputized officers use the authority, again coordinating with DOT and the FAA. Oversight is framed as an interagency responsibility, which implies reporting, review, and operational controls to ensure federal airspace safety and uniform application of counter‑UAS measures across jurisdictions.Finally, the bill restricts the technical tools that deputized officers may use.
It requires that any systems used for UAS detection, identification, monitoring, or tracking be on a DHS‑maintained list created in coordination with DOJ, FAA, FCC, and NTIA. That creates a single, vetted equipment list that ties together law‑enforcement operational authority, communications spectrum rules, and federal aviation safety considerations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 6 U.S.C. 124n by adding subsection (m) permitting DHS or the Attorney General to deputize state/local officers to use the Department’s counter‑UAS authority.
Deputization is limited to protecting: sites with flight restrictions under the 2004 appropriations statute (49 U.S.C. 40103 note), eligible large public gatherings under 49 U.S.C. 44812(c), or events covered by FAA temporary flight restrictions under 49 U.S.C. 40103(b).
Only officers who have completed training specified by DHS or the Attorney General—developed in coordination with DOT and the FAA—may be deputized.
DHS or the Attorney General must exercise oversight of deputized officers’ use of counter‑UAS authority, in coordination with DOT and the FAA.
Permitted detection/identification/monitoring/tracking equipment is limited to technologies on a DHS list maintained in coordination with DOJ, FAA, FCC, and NTIA.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — DEFENSE Act
This single‑line section provides the Act’s short name: the Disabling Enemy Flight Entry and Neutralizing Suspect Equipment Act, or DEFENSE Act. It has no operational effect beyond labeling the amendment added in Section 2.
Scope of deputized authority — eligible sites and events
Paragraph (1) defines where deputized officers may exercise authority: (A) sites covered by the specific 2004 flight‑restriction provision, (B) locations qualifying as eligible large public gatherings under 49 U.S.C. 44812(c), and (C) other public gatherings protected by FAA temporary flight restrictions under 49 U.S.C. 40103(b). This is a jurisdictional filter: it ties local operational authority to federal airspace designations rather than granting a blanket counter‑UAS power.
Training prerequisite for deputization
Paragraph (2) requires that only officers who complete training may be deputized. The bill assigns DHS or the Attorney General responsibility for specifying that training and requires coordination with DOT and the FAA. That makes federal airspace and aviation safety agencies part of curriculum design and sets a precondition intended to standardize skills across jurisdictions.
Federal oversight and interagency coordination
Paragraph (3) directs DHS or the Attorney General to exercise oversight of how deputized officers use the authority, in coordination with DOT and FAA. Practically, this creates a compliance and supervisory relationship that could include reporting, audits, operational approvals, or after‑action reviews, aligning local operations with national airspace safety and policy.
Authorized equipment limited to DHS‑maintained list
Paragraph (4) constrains permitted UAS detection/identification/monitoring/tracking technologies to those appearing on a DHS list developed with DOJ, FAA, FCC, and NTIA. The requirement folds communications and spectrum regulators into the technology approval process, signaling attention to interference, privacy, and interoperability issues while centralizing technical vetting.
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
- Event and venue operators (stadiums, concert venues, large public gatherings) — gain a proximate, deputized law enforcement capability to respond to UAS threats without awaiting federal teams, which can shorten response times and reduce operational disruption.
- State and local law enforcement agencies — receive statutory authority and a federalized training path to employ counter‑UAS measures at specified events, expanding tactical options and legal cover for certain defensive actions.
- Federal aviation and homeland security officials (FAA, DHS) — attain a framework to extend protective measures into local hands while retaining control over approved technologies and oversight, enabling coordinated protection of crowded venues.
- Vendors of approved detection/monitoring systems — those placed on the DHS list become eligible for procurement and deployment by deputized officers, creating a defined market for vetted technologies.
Who Bears the Cost
- State and local agencies — must fund training, potentially procure compliant equipment, and absorb the administrative and liability burdens of newly authorized counter‑UAS operations, which can be significant for smaller jurisdictions.
- Federal agencies (DHS, DOJ, FAA, FCC, NTIA) — face additional coordination, oversight, and administrative workload to develop training, maintain the equipment list, and supervise deputized activity without explicit new funding in the bill.
- Communications and broadcast stakeholders — may incur operational constraints or coordination costs because equipment approvals require input from the FCC and NTIA to avoid harmful interference with licensed spectrum.
- Civil‑liberties and privacy oversight bodies — bear the indirect cost of having to monitor expanded detection/monitoring deployments and litigate or advocate where deployments raise surveillance or data‑retention concerns.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central trade‑off is between improving on‑site event security by empowering local officers with counter‑UAS tools and preserving centralized control over airspace safety, spectrum management, privacy safeguards, and uniform standards; delegating operational authority helps speed responses but shifts costs, legal exposure, and oversight burdens onto state and local actors while relying on a federal apparatus to keep technology and procedures safe and consistent.
The bill sets up a practical delegation model but leaves several implementation details unspecified. It mandates that deputized officers complete training specified by federal officials yet does not define curriculum minimums, frequency of recertification, or whether training costs are federally funded.
That creates an implementation gap: smaller law enforcement entities may struggle to meet training requirements or afford approved equipment.
Centralizing an equipment whitelist resolves some safety and spectrum concerns but introduces procurement and technology‑currency risks. The list requires coordination among DHS, DOJ, FAA, FCC, and NTIA—each with different priorities—so approval could lag behind commercial innovation or vary in scope depending on interagency tradeoffs.
The statute also does not address data retention, search‑and‑seizure rules, or civil‑liability standards when officers disable or seize UAS, leaving open the likelihood of litigation and inconsistent local policies.
Operationally, deputizing local officers to act in federal airspace raises questions about preemption, use‑of‑force parameters, and incident command when state and federal actors both have jurisdiction. The bill ties deputization to FAA TFRs and statutory flight restrictions but does not specify procedures for real‑time coordination with air traffic operations or contingencies when counter‑UAS actions might affect manned aircraft, emergency responders, or critical communications.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.