Currently, there isn’t an official count of the number of drones used by law enforcement agencies in the United States, and the public lacks access to any comprehensive list from agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or the Department of Justice (DOJ). Industry estimates suggest that the number of police drone programs could be in the thousands, with one recent estimate going as high as 6,000. Clearly, Congress shouldn’t rely on corporate earnings calls for information about how many drones are monitoring citizens. Agencies like the Department of Transportation, FAA, DOJ, and the Office of Justice Programs should compile and share this data with Congress.
Up until recently, the majority of drones sold to police departments were produced in China, which raises serious concerns about potential Chinese government influence. This situation had prompted Congress to take action to curb what has been termed a “Chinese drone invasion” in police departments. These efforts are certainly necessary, but they are far from over. Even if new sales are slowing down, numerous fleets of Chinese drones remain operational across the country, and there are ongoing efforts to keep Chinese parts and software integrated into these systems.
It’s essential that no hardware or software from China be incorporated into police or federal drones in the U.S., including any related technology such as chips, cameras, batteries, flight controllers, apps, firmware, or cloud services.
Grant funding, FAA registrations, and operational approvals should not be extended to drones or ground systems that contain any Chinese components. American first responders deserve supply chains that are entirely American.
This principle is already reflected in federal law and should be enforced strictly. For instance, Section 848 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 prohibited the Department of Defense from using or contracting for specific foreign unmanned aircraft systems and critical components. Additionally, the American Security Drone Act of 2023, part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, specifies that no Office of Justice Programs funding should go toward unmanned aircraft systems made by covered foreign entities, except for limited exceptions.
Members of Congress shouldn’t have to speculate about the number of drones operating in the skies. There is a pressing need for Congress to investigate and collaborate with executive agencies to gather exact data: how many unmanned aircraft federal and local law enforcement agencies are operating, fleet sizes by agency, their missions and capabilities, and the regulations governing their use. This kind of transparency is vital for government-operated drones. Existing fleets should be registered within 30 days of starting operations to help curb unchecked aerial surveillance.
Federal taxpayer money should be directed toward genuine emergencies—whether it’s search and rescue, traffic incidents, officer safety, or a standoff—not towards constant surveillance from above.
This funding already comes through various channels, including the Office of Justice Programs, and there’s already a strong emphasis on unmanned aerial systems for Fiscal Year 2026 within community policing. “Drone as first responder” cannot substitute for a warrant. Ongoing neighborhood surveillance effectively amounts to a general warrant from the air, and using a microphone on a drone amounts to an interception. Listening in should follow the same legal protocols as Title III wiretaps, avoiding unnecessary broad searches, maintaining logs, and ensuring short retention times.
While drones funded through DOJ grants are already prohibited from being weaponized, this ban should extend to all related funding unless Congress decides differently.
No firearms. No launchers. No explosives.
An officer operating under a lawful use-of-force policy carries accountability. Utilizing weaponized drones in public areas isn’t the right way to support first responders.
We truly need to clarify what’s happening with drone usage in a rapidly evolving situation, so that people have a better understanding. The current rules, if they exist at all, are unclear and scattered among various agencies. This has to change. It’s crucial to uphold the Fourth Amendment, protect taxpayer dollars, and prevent local departments from entering into complicated agreements that might introduce risky foreign technologies.
I’ve always supported law enforcement, but I support the Constitution even more. We can equip first responders with essential tools without compromising the rights of Americans to lead lives free from constant surveillance. Highlighting issues like license plate readers while ignoring drones overlooks a significant aspect of the problem. Preserving individual privacy is vital to ensure freedom matters for future generations.
