Law enforcement gets warrantless drone surveillance power under public-safety bill
H.R. 7525 — Counter Drone State and Local Defender Act · Filed by Eric Burlison (R-MO) · Introduced Feb 12, 2026 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill authorizes state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies to detect, track, disable, and destroy drones that pose threats to public safety or critical facilities. It creates a 3-year pilot program allowing up to 4,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide to use FAA-approved counter-drone equipment, with a special expedited program for agencies protecting the 2026 FIFA World Cup. The bill exempts these activities from federal wiretapping, computer fraud, and aircraft sabotage laws, though it includes privacy safeguards requiring agencies to destroy intercepted communications after use unless needed for prosecution.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is not primarily about drone defense hardware; it is a statutory exemption from federal wiretapping and electronic surveillance laws (18 U.S.C. §§ 32, 1030, 1367, chapters 119 and 206) that permits law enforcement to intercept drone operator communications without prior consent or judicial warrant. The drone-safety framing is the stated purpose, but the functional grant is surveillance authority.
What the text implies
- The bill exempts counter-UAS activities from 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (wiretapping statute) and § 2701 (electronic communications privacy), permitting law enforcement to intercept drone operator communications without a warrant or Title III order. Privacy protections are post-hoc (destroy records after use) rather than prospective (judicial approval before interception).
- The definition of 'credible threat' is delegated entirely to the FAA Administrator with no statutory definition, creating broad discretion over what drone activity triggers surveillance authority. Agencies self-certify compliance with privacy rules; there is no independent audit or pre-approval mechanism.
The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
Who stands to gain
counter-UAS equipment manufacturers and vendors; law enforcement technology integrators; drone detection and mitigation system providers