Hearing: Lawmakers, Experts Urge Expanded Counter‑UAS Authority as Drone Misuse Rises

Chairman Biggs convened a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing where members and expert witnesses described mounting threats from malicious unmanned aircraft systems and urged Congress to expand legal authority, training and technology so state and local agencies can respond.

Witnesses and committee leaders described multiple uses of drones by criminal networks and foreign adversaries, from dropping contraband into prisons and smuggling drugs across the border to surveillance and potential attacks on critical infrastructure and mass gatherings. "The ability to detect, mitigate, rogue drones is no longer a futuristic concept. It's a present day necessity," said Sergeant Robert Dooley of the Florida Highway Patrol, who testified about operational gaps for public safety agencies.

The hearing focused on three related shortfalls: legal authority, systems and training. Representative Jamie Raskin, the committee's ranking member, described bipartisan legislation he helped introduce, HR 5061, saying the measure would "reauthorize, reform, and expand the existing counter unmanned aircraft system or counter UAS authorities" and, for the first time through a pilot program, extend mitigation authorities to state and local law enforcement with training and performance standards.

Experts testified that current federal authority to disable or mitigate drones is concentrated in a few agencies and that most state and local responders lack the statutory relief and certified training needed to act in real time. Dr. Catherine Cahill, director of the Alaska Center for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration (ACUASI), told the panel, "The first question I always get asked when I talk to the public about the issue of malicious UAS is, why can't we shoot them?" Cahill explained UAS are treated as aircraft under the U.S. Code, limiting who may lawfully use mitigation tools and making careful risk‑benefit decisionmaking necessary.

Industry and academic witnesses described both scale and trends. Dr. Ryan Wallace of Embry‑Riddle Aeronautical University said the FAA now estimates millions of drones in U.S. airspace and warned that easy, low‑cost capabilities act as a force multiplier for bad actors. Brett Feddersen, vice president at Defend Solutions, urged comprehensive federal counter‑drone legislation and a robust expansion of pilot programs, saying, "The threat from malicious drones uses in real immediate and growing. We must take decisive action now."

Witnesses and members cited specific patterns and figures offered during testimony: FAA reports of more than 1,000 incursions near U.S. airports during a recent six‑month window; U.S. Northern Command reporting more than 1,000 drones crossing into U.S. airspace from the Mexican border each month; CBP citing thousands of incursions and tens of thousands of sightings in parts of Texas in 2024; the Bureau of Prisons' deployment of detection systems at 64 facilities; Department of Homeland Security detections near the southern border measured in the tens of thousands over recent months; and testimony that civilian manufacturers from a narrow set of suppliers, notably DJI, held very large market shares in consumer and commercial sectors.

Committee members and witnesses repeatedly emphasized the tradeoffs and technical constraints of mitigation tools. Testimony noted that mitigation can present safety risks (a disabled drone falling on people or property) and airspace or spectrum risks (interference with navigation or communications), and that mitigations must not unintentionally create greater hazards. At the same time, witnesses argued that a framework combining clear legal authority, training standards, accountable operational procedures, and interoperable detection systems could allow safe, proportionate responses by trained state and local personnel.

Members asked whether available technologies can remove or safely land threatening drones without endangering aircraft or bystanders. Panelists said mitigation technologies exist and have been tested in certain contexts but that gaps remain in legal authority, consistent national standards, funding, and scaled training before wide deployment. Several members noted major upcoming events and asked whether the nation can be ready; witnesses answered that more rapid legislative action and programmatic scaling would be required.

The hearing did not include votes or formal committee actions on legislation. Several members and witnesses urged swift congressional action on HR 5061 and similar measures to expand authorities in a limited, trained, and accountable way.

The subcommittee record will include written testimony submitted by witnesses and the hearing closed after additional member questions and the chair's adjournment.