Private Sites Authorized to Use Counter-Drone Systems

Summary#

This bill lets owners and operators of designated high-risk critical infrastructure use approved counter-unmanned aircraft system (counter‑UAS) technologies to detect, track, seize, or otherwise mitigate drones that pose credible threats to their sites. It requires training and federal certification, sets standards and FAA coordination, creates a grant program to buy approved systems, and gives limited federal liability protection to people who act under the law. The authority for private critical infrastructure owners to act ends on September 30, 2031.

• Main change: Gives a statutory exception so designated private critical infrastructure owners (and their security staff or contractors) may use approved counter‑UAS actions that would otherwise be restricted by federal aviation and criminal laws, after completing required training and certification.
• Standards and list: Counter‑UAS technologies must be on a joint authorized list and meet training, legal, operational, and technical standards set by DHS with other agencies.
• Grants: DHS (with DOE) may award grants to buy, install, and operate approved systems; $250 million is authorized for 2027–2031.
• Liability: Actions taken under the law are treated as federal actions for liability purposes; civil or criminal claims are barred except for gross negligence or willful misconduct.
• Oversight and timing: DHS must set up a national certification program and issue implementing regulations and guidance within 180 days, and report (unclassified with a classified annex) on activities starting one year after enactment.

What it means for you#

• Owners/operators of designated critical infrastructure:

  • May use approved counter‑UAS tools to respond to a credible drone threat after personnel complete federal training and certification.
  • Can apply for grants to buy and operate approved systems.
  • Actions they take under the law get federal liability protection except for gross negligence or willful misconduct.
  • Their facilities must be designated by DHS (in consultation with DOE) as “covered critical infrastructure,” which at minimum includes large electric-system sites like nuclear plants, key substations, transformer stations, and control centers.

• Security personnel and contractors at those sites:

  • Must be trained and certified under the national program before exercising counter‑UAS authority.
  • Are counted in a list of certified personnel that DHS must report to Congress.

• Pilots and other airspace users:

  • The bill requires mandatory coordination protocols with the FAA to protect the national airspace, but it also creates an exception to some federal aviation and criminal statutes so designated private actors can take on certain counter‑UAS actions.

• Local law enforcement and courts:

  • Seized unmanned aircraft systems may be subject to forfeiture under the laws of the jurisdiction where seizure happened, consistent with DHS procedures.

• The public:

  • The program is temporary for private actors (ends Sept. 30, 2031) and will be monitored by periodic reports to Congress, including a classified annex.

Expenses#

Estimated public cost: The bill authorizes $250,000,000 for fiscal years 2027 through 2031 to fund grants for purchase, installation, and operation of approved counter‑UAS systems.

• The bill requires DHS to create and run a national certification program and to issue regulations and guidance; these administrative and staffing costs are not estimated in the text.
• DHS must produce reports (including classified annexes) and coordinate with multiple agencies; additional federal implementation costs are likely but not quantified.
• No fiscal note in the bill text explains other costs, such as possible changes in federal liability payments or enforcement costs.

No publicly available information on total long‑term costs, savings, or administrative cost estimates beyond the $250 million grant authorization.

Proponents' View#

A possible argument for the bill, based on its text and findings:

• The bill appears intended to close a legal gap that currently prevents private owners of high‑risk infrastructure from using counter‑UAS tools to protect sites from drone threats.
• Allowing trained, certified operators to act could reduce the risk of damage or service disruption to critical systems (for example, parts of the electric grid).
• A national certification program and a joint authorized list of technologies could standardize safe and legally compliant operations.
• Grants help reduce up‑front costs for owners and encourage deployment of approved systems at high‑risk sites.
• Limited federal liability protection aims to reduce legal uncertainty for site operators acting under the program.

Opponents' View#

Reasonable concerns and risks raised by the bill’s design:

• The bill gives private actors the authority to use disabling or interfering technologies in the national airspace; one concern is the risk of harming nearby aircraft, passengers, or bystanders if a counter‑UAS action goes wrong.
• The liability shield could make it harder for third parties harmed by an action to obtain remedies, since civil and criminal claims are barred except for gross negligence or willful misconduct.
• The bill leaves several operational details unclear: which specific technologies will be approved, how real‑time coordination with the FAA will work, how mistakes will be reviewed, and how forfeiture across jurisdictions will be handled.
• Oversight and transparency may be limited because required reports include classified annexes; it is unclear how much public detail will be available about incidents and program outcomes.
• Running the certification, coordination, and reporting systems will impose costs and workload on DHS, FAA, DOE, and other agencies; the bill does not provide a fiscal estimate for these administrative burdens.
• There may be privacy, civil liberties, or state‑law conflicts that the bill does not specifically address.