House Homeland Security hearing examines DHS drone use for border security, disaster response and counter‑UAS challenges

WASHINGTON — The House Committee on Homeland Security’s subcommittees on Border Security and Enforcement and on Emergency Management and Technology convened a hearing to examine the Department of Homeland Security’s use of unmanned aircraft systems, commonly called drones, across DHS components and to consider operational benefits, supply‑chain limits, counter‑drone threats and civil‑liberties issues.

The hearing opened with Chairman Michael Guest describing how DHS components have integrated UAS into border security and response missions. “Drones have equipped Customs and Border Protection with the ability to locate and track threats in the air while also increasing officer and agent safety on the ground,” Guest said during his opening remarks, and he cited CBP program gains including a statement that CBP seized approximately 2,800 pounds of illicit narcotics from fiscal 2020 through fiscal 2023.

Why it matters: Members and witnesses said drones can be a force multiplier for border agents, law enforcement and first responders — providing faster situational awareness for interdiction, search and rescue, and damage assessment after disasters — but they also flagged counter‑UAS threats, limits on domestic manufacturing, certification bottlenecks and privacy risks that could slow or complicate wider adoption.

Operational uses and demonstrations

Brian Farrell, interim director of Mississippi State University’s RASPIT Flight Research Laboratory, described Project Justice, the university’s joint testing and research effort supporting DHS Science and Technology. Farrell said RASPIT operates a range of UAS, including a large vehicle used for wide‑area disaster sensing, and that the lab provided live video and tiled imagery to stakeholders — including FEMA and the White House — during recent hurricane responses. Farrell said those large UAS provided “24 hours of endurance” in some missions and enabled faster response and damage assessment.

Chief Kevin Fetterman of the Orange County Fire Authority, testifying for the International Association of Fire Chiefs, said public‑safety agencies are increasingly deploying UAS for incident commanders to gain aerial, real‑time situational awareness. Fetterman cited the September 2024 airport fire and January 2025 Los Angeles wildfires as examples where public‑safety drones helped track hot spots and coordinate resources. He also detailed hazards from unauthorized UAS operations during incidents, saying that between Jan. 7 and Jan. 25 there were more than 700 incursions by more than 400 different UAS during California fires and that one encounter led to a small aircraft sustaining a hole in its wing after a collision with an unmanned vehicle.

Supply chain, certification and manufacturing constraints

Dr. Michael Ledbetter, chief operating officer of Colsa Corporation, described industry challenges complying with national‑security procurement rules and certifying domestically produced systems. Ledbetter cited an example in which the Defense Innovation Unit’s verification challenge received 369 submissions but had resources to accept only 23 platforms and 14 additional components, which he said demonstrates a bottleneck that leaves federal and state purchasers with “very few and increasingly expensive options” to meet supply‑chain restrictions. Ledbetter urged streamlined evaluations, more certifying bodies and continued R&D in autonomy, communications and battery technology to support beyond‑visual‑line‑of‑sight operations.

Counter‑UAS threats and testing

Witnesses and members emphasized a growing threat from adversaries and criminal actors using drones. Jerry Hendricks of the University of Alabama in Huntsville warned that cartels and other groups use UAS for surveillance, payload delivery and other illicit acts — sometimes employing tactics observed in the Ukraine war — and urged more realistic testing and certified threat replication so counter‑UAS systems can be validated against credible adversary capabilities. Hendricks and others called for more permissive test ranges, clarified rules for training and faster regulatory paths to allow research and exercises that mirror real‑world conditions.

Privacy, civil‑liberties and grant funding concerns

Ranking Member Representative Kennedy and Representative Ramirez expressed concern about proposed reductions to FEMA and other grant streams that fund local drone purchases and training. Kennedy said the committee should consider how grant cuts could hamper local first responders’ ability to acquire drone technology used in search‑and‑rescue and disaster response. Representative Ramirez questioned safeguards for sensitive data collected by drones; witnesses said agencies and academic centers are working on data‑safeguarding practices, that some work is done in coordination with legal programs and that customers impose cybersecurity and data requirements on vendors.

Committee questions and next steps

Members pressed witnesses on how DHS components vet suppliers under the National Defense Authorization Act‑driven restrictions, how to accelerate domestic production, and how to reduce public‑use incursions into temporary flight restrictions. Witnesses asked the committee for clearer testing authorities, more resources for certification and independent testing of counter‑UAS systems, and funding and regulatory changes that would let DHS and state and local partners train and operate UAS more effectively.

The hearing record will remain open for follow‑up written questions; no formal votes or committee actions were taken at the hearing.

Ending note: Members said they expect additional briefings and written responses from witnesses to clarify procurement timelines, specific capabilities and remaining regulatory barriers.