New Hampshire House Bill HB1444

New Hampshire 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/4/25
• Refer: 12/4/25
• Report Pass: 2/11/26
• Refer: 2/19/26
• Engrossed: 2/25/26
• Refer: 2/25/26
• Report Pass: 4/9/26
• Enrolled: 5/18/26
• Chaptered: 6/1/26
• Passed: 6/1/26

Caption

relative to the purchase or acquisition of certain unmanned aircraft systems.

Summary

HB 1444 creates a new chapter in state law restricting government purchases of certain unmanned aircraft systems, or drones. Beginning January 1, 2028, state agencies would be barred from purchasing or acquiring drones unless they are cleared under a new state process referenced in the bill, and state funds could not be used for prohibited purchases. The bill also directs state agencies, to the extent practicable before that date, to buy only drones that already meet those clearance requirements. The bill extends similar limits to counties, cities, towns, and other political subdivisions. Local governments would be prohibited from buying drones that do not satisfy the federal security requirements in the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act or that appear on the Federal Communications Commission’s covered list of devices deemed a national security or safety risk. Any contract made in violation of these rules would be void and unenforceable. The act takes effect 60 days after passage, but the purchasing prohibitions themselves are delayed until 2028.

Impact

HB 1444 would add RSA chapter 162-V and change how state and local governments procure drones by tying eligibility to federal security standards and a state clearance process. It would not ban drone use generally, but it would limit government acquisition of certain systems and make noncompliant purchase contracts unenforceable. The bill could affect procurement practices across state agencies and local political subdivisions, including departments that use drones for public safety, inspection, conservation, and transportation work.

Sentiment

The available context suggests generally favorable or precautionary support for the bill, with no recorded floor votes or committee transcript debate showing organized opposition. The fiscal note reflects that agencies expect little or no immediate impact, but acknowledge uncertain future costs depending on the drone market and future operational needs. Overall, the bill appears to have been framed as a security-minded procurement restriction rather than a controversial operational mandate.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely practical and fiscal rather than ideological: whether the state and local governments should be constrained to federally cleared or approved drone systems, especially given the current prevalence of foreign-made systems and the possibility of higher costs for compliant equipment. The Department of Safety and Fish and Game both indicated that future costs are indeterminable, and Fish and Game estimated compliant units and training could be significantly more expensive than current options. Local governments may also be concerned about reduced flexibility in procurement and the risk that future federal or FCC lists could narrow available choices.