Private drone takedowns at power plants—with immunity from lawsuits
H.R. 9232 — Critical Infrastructure Airspace Defense Act · Filed by Matt Van Epps (R-TN) · 1 cosponsor · Introduced Jun 9, 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 allows private owners and operators of critical infrastructure facilities (like power plants and electrical substations) to detect, track, and shoot down drones that threaten their facilities, provided they complete federal training and certification. The bill also creates a $250 million grant program to help these facilities purchase and install anti-drone systems, and shields facility operators from civil or criminal liability for actions taken under this authority.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core function is to authorize private drone countermeasures at critical infrastructure sites and fund anti-drone technology. However, the broad liability shield for private operators is a significant secondary provision that insulates them from accountability—a carve-out that may exceed the stated public-safety purpose.
What the text implies
- Liability shield (Section 5) exempts private security personnel from civil and criminal liability except for gross negligence or willful misconduct—a very high bar. This may allow collateral damage (e.g., a drone shot down over a populated area) without meaningful recourse for injured citizens.
- The bill delegates real-time airspace enforcement to private actors without explicit coordination requirements beyond 'mandatory coordination protocols' with the FAA. Gaps in coordination could create safety hazards or conflicts with manned aircraft.
- The $250M grant program (Section 4) may disproportionately benefit large utilities and infrastructure operators with resources to apply, while smaller or rural facilities may lack capacity to participate.
- The 'covered critical infrastructure facility' definition is delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, creating regulatory discretion that could expand or contract the scope of private drone-takedown authority without further congressional action.
- The authority terminates September 30, 2031, but the bill does not address what happens to seized drones, confiscated equipment, or ongoing liability claims after sunset.
Who it affects
Citizens benefit from enhanced protection of critical infrastructure that supplies electricity and other essential services. However, the broad liability shield for private security personnel and the delegation of airspace enforcement to private actors creates risks of accidents, misuse, or collateral damage that ordinary people may bear without clear recourse or oversight.
Who stands to gain
- Defense contractors and counter-UAS technology manufacturers
- Electric utilities and power system operators
- Private security firms and contractors
- Critical infrastructure facility owners
Named in the bill
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Energy (DOE), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Transportation (DOT), Attorney General, Critical infrastructure facility owners and operators, Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), North American electric grid, Bulk power system
Where it stands
1 cosponsor: 1 Republicans.
- Jun 9, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Jun 9, 2026 — Referred to House Committee on Homeland Security and House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on the…”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
12 lobbying clients named this bill on 12 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $3,819,193 in lobbying spend. A filing names 50 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 93% of bills with at least one filing.
Matt Van Epps, the sponsor, reported $601,900 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Edison Electric Institute — $1,689,193 on 1 filing
- American Electric Power Company, Inc. and Affiliated Corporations — $380,000 on 1 filing
- Xcel Energy Inc — $370,000 on 1 filing
- Puget Sound Energy — $350,000 on 1 filing
- Basf Corporation — $340,000 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the full bill text on Jul 9, 2026; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Private drone takedowns at power plants—with immunity from lawsuits” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr9232 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.