States gain power to disable drones with minimal judicial oversight or pre-action review.
S. 3481 — SAFER SKIES Act · Filed by Gary Peters (D-MI) · 3 cosponsors · Introduced Dec 15, 2025 · 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 expands the authority to use drone-disabling technology from federal agencies (DHS, DOJ) to state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement and correctional agencies. It requires training and certification through a federal program, mandates reporting of all counter-drone actions within 48 hours, and allows these agencies to use grant funds to purchase counter-drone systems. It also increases criminal penalties for operating drones during felonies, smuggling contraband via drone into prisons, and violating national defense airspace.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core mechanism is a delegation of federal counter-UAS authority to state and local law enforcement, paired with criminal penalties for drone misuse. It is functionally a public-safety and law-enforcement measure, not a corporate giveaway or commemorative act.
- Sections 5(c)–(e) increase criminal penalties for operating drones during felonies, smuggling contraband via drone into prisons, and repeat airspace violations. These are substantively unrelated to the core counter-UAS authority grant and belong in criminal code, not a homeland security delegation bill.
- Sections 3–4 amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act to allow grant funds to purchase both unmanned aircraft systems AND counter-UAS systems. The UAS purchase authority is tangential to counter-UAS delegation and expands grant eligibility beyond the bill's stated purpose.
What the text implies
- The bill exempts counter-UAS actions from federal wiretapping laws (18 U.S.C. §§ 119, 206) and computer-fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1030, 1367), creating a broad safe harbor for electronic surveillance or system interference that would otherwise be illegal.
- State and local agencies may seize and forfeit drones under their own state forfeiture laws, creating financial incentives for counter-UAS deployment and potential abuse of the 'credible threat' standard to generate revenue.
The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
Who stands to gain
Counter-UAS technology manufacturers and vendors (systems on the authorized list); Defense contractors supplying training and certification infrastructure; State and local law enforcement agencies (grant funding for equipment purchase)