The recent surge in drone sightings across the tristate area of New Jersey, New York and Connecticut has sparked complaints from local officials, governors and even President-elect Donald Trump amid a glut of blurry amateur video footage. The FBI in Newark has established dedicated tip lines to manage an overwhelming number of calls, underscoring the public’s anxiety. On Monday, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration together noted in a report they had “not identified anything anomalous.”
That’s a lot of federal agencies for one statement.
Clearly, the last few weeks have hit a nerve. It’s been weeks since the first sightings were reported, increasing frustration and allowing conspiracy theories to flourish. This lag time also suggests, at the very least, that there are still gaps in the federal government’s approach to managing airspace security. I’m also mindful of the impact this hysteria could have on lawful drone operators, whether state and local governments or everyday hobbyists.
There are still gaps in the federal government’s approach to managing airspace security.
A significant challenge has been the verification of alleged sightings, which increased dramatically in November. White House national security spokesperson John Kirby noted that many reported drones simply could not be confirmed, suggesting that many might be manned aircraft operating lawfully.
The agencies agree. “Having closely examined the technical data and tips from concerned citizens, we assess that the sightings to date include a combination of lawful commercial drones, hobbyist drones, and law enforcement drones, as well as manned fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and stars mistakenly reported as drones,” read the joint statement released on Monday.
But what if the United States faced drones that were actually dangerous? The war between Ukraine and Russia has proven that small drones can be the future of warfare. Some of the confusion stems from the complexity of the regulatory environment. The FAA typically oversees airspace regulations, including drone operations. But the FAA has been clear that it only regulates airspace from a safety perspective. For example, it requires drones to have remote identification so that they can show their identity in flight. In other words, the FAA is there to make sure drones operate safely. The agency is not in charge of identifying or eliminating national security threats.
The Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the Department of Energy also play a role in the drone regulation patchwork. For example, the DOJ and DHS have interdiction authority for drones that are deemed credible threats. And the DOD and DOE have authority to protect certain military and nuclear facilities in the U.S. But jurisdiction is not always clear.
In a worst-case scenario, the question becomes how to neutralize this kind of credible threat. Civilians should absolutely not try to shoot down the drones, as some politicians have suggested, and federal law outlaws shooting down aircrafts, including unmanned aircraft systems. Even the Department of Defense cannot engage with objects it cannot verify, especially over densely populated areas where debris could cause damage.
Law enforcement or members of the military could potentially use interceptor missiles, but this raises concerns about collateral damage. Directed energy weapons (which use electromagnetic energy, rather than kinetic energy) offer another solution, but that also comes with risks. Misfiring could potentially affect commercial or other manned aircraft, a frightening thought.
Perhaps what we really need to break agencies out of their own individual silos is to improve interagency task forces.
The technology to detect drones at significant distances does exist, but integrating these technologies into federal operations has been slow and would be costly to install nationwide, further complicating the ability of federal agencies to respond swiftly and effectively to sightings. Most radar systems are designed to ignore small objects so there is not interference. Radar designed for drone detection may be different than what is used to maintain safe air traffic.
Perhaps what we really need to break agencies out of their own individual silos is to improve interagency task forces. Congress created a Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Executive Committee in 2008 — to be co-chaired by the DOD and FAA — but that hasn’t amounted to much since. Meanwhile FAA rule changes last year mean that drones can now legally fly at night. Further, the government should engage in more public-private partnerships to acquire and integrate field-ready technologies for drone detection and management. The FAA has already completed several C-UAS demonstrations with airports around the country. I believe these partnerships can both expedite the adoption of proven technologies and help the U.S. remain at the forefront of drone management and airspace security. (The Enhanced Regional Situational Awareness system in Washington, D.C. is another example of a public-private airborne threats partnership.) And Congress could pass a bipartisan legislative package of C-UAS policies. This legislation could result in real, consequential solutions. For example, if passed, the current bill could help DHS, FAA and DOJ detect, disable and mitigate threatening drones by improving coordination among the agencies and extending and expanding federal government counter-drone authorities. The bill could also authorize state and local agencies to purchase C-UAS technologies, ideally empowering local police departments and state homeland security agencies to better protect critical infrastructure like power plants, airports and transportation systems. The continuing resolution for Fiscal Year 2024 funding that is moving through Congress would also extend already existing C-UAS authorities. Incrementalism and the status quo are no longer enough. Combining these two ideas — a more robust federal agency coordination and the integration of public-private partnerships — should help manage the complexities of drone jurisdiction. As the situation evolves, it is crucial for authorities to provide clear and accurate information to the public while addressing the gaps that contribute to the confusion. Drones can do great things — if we integrate and regulate them effectively. Let’s not let the great drone panic of 2024 stand in the way of progress.
Misha Lehrer
Misha Lehrer is policy advisor and advocate for sensible defense and national security policies at Holland & Knight, a global law firm, providing clients with dual-use technologies and those embedded in the defense industrial base with strategic insights to help navigate Congress and the executive branch. Prior to joining Holland & Knight, Lehrer served as a legislative and economic aide to Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. 
