Senate committee hears bill to bar purchase of foreign-made drones by public entities

Senator Cherry Johnson opened the first hearing on Senate Bill 180, telling the Senate Transportation Committee the bill would “prohibit[] purchasing small unmanned aircraft systems manufactured by a covered foreign entity, such as manufacturers based in the People's Republic of China or the Russian Federation.”

The bill would bar Ohio public entities, including state agencies and law enforcement, from buying covered foreign-made small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) and provide a phased compliance window through May 1, 2027, Johnson said: “it does not impose an immediate replacement requirement. Instead, it provides a transition period until 05/01/2027.”

Why it matters: supporters framed the measure as a security and supply-chain response to widespread foreign market share in commercial drones and to reported incidents in which off‑the‑shelf unmanned systems were adapted for military use. During questioning, senators pressed on implementation details, local law-enforcement use, data-storage concerns and whether domestic manufacturing capacity exists to meet demand.

Committee discussion focused on three practical questions: the security risk from foreign-made drone components; how local and state agencies would comply if they already own covered systems; and whether the bill should follow more comprehensive counter-drone policies. Vice Chair Schafer asked whether the bill’s goal was economic development or security, and whether the committee should be concerned about “espionage going on when we buy foreign equipment.” Senator Johnson responded by citing market concentration: “in 02/2024, I think 90% of all commercially available drones … were manufactured by 1 company called DJI,” and warned of supply‑and‑data risks from concentrated foreign production.

Senator Smith asked whether the sponsor had consulted law-enforcement organizations, naming the Fraternal Order of Police and the Buckeye Sheriffs Association. Johnson said federal, state and local agencies have not coalesced on a single integrated approach and encouraged conversations with Buckeye Sheriffs, the Ohio FOP and police chiefs while describing the bill as a “conversation starter.”

Senator Chavez pressed about where drone data would be stored; Johnson acknowledged that storage location is important and said it should be considered alongside hardware provenance. Senator Timken raised the question of domestic manufacturing capacity and described Ohio’s proximity to military installations as a reason for concern about denial‑of‑service or kinetic threats to strategic assets.

No formal action was taken; the item was recorded as a first hearing. The committee received sponsor testimony and questions but did not move the bill forward during this session.

What remained unresolved: committee members asked for more information from law-enforcement and other state agencies about current inventories, countries of manufacture for existing systems, and potential mitigation steps such as counter-drone technologies and federal coordination. The sponsor repeatedly described the bill as designed to allow a phased transition to U.S. manufacturers and to encourage domestic production.

Ending: The committee concluded the first hearing on SB 180 with no vote and moved on to other agenda items.