HB7379, the NASA Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System Authority Act, would give the NASA Administrator explicit authority to detect, identify, monitor, and track unmanned aircraft systems and unmanned aircraft that pose a credible threat to certain NASA facilities and assets. The bill creates a new section in title 51 of the U.S. Code authorizing NASA personnel, and certain contractors under strict conditions, to use specified counter-UAS measures without prior consent when necessary to protect covered facilities or assets. It also directs NASA to identify relevant facilities and assets, conduct risk-based assessments, and designate high-risk locations as covered facilities or assets.
The bill also authorizes NASA to conduct research, testing, training, and evaluation of approved counter-UAS equipment, and requires training for authorized personnel. It establishes coordination requirements with the Secretary of Transportation and other agencies to avoid disrupting airport operations, navigation, air traffic services, and the broader national airspace system. The measure includes privacy and civil liberties safeguards, limits retention of intercepted communications to 180 days absent specified exceptions, requires semiannual congressional briefings, and sunsets the authority on September 30, 2031.
If enacted, the bill would amend title 51 of the U.S. Code by adding a new NASA-specific counter-UAS authority and conforming the chapter 201 table of contents. It would create a limited legal exception for certain otherwise restricted interception or monitoring activities when used to protect NASA facilities and assets from credible drone threats, while preserving coordination with FAA and other agencies and imposing reporting, privacy, and operational constraints. The bill would primarily affect NASA, its protective personnel and contractors, federal aviation and communications stakeholders, and potentially state and local law enforcement partners involved in security operations.
The available context shows no recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no documented partisan or stakeholder sentiment in the materials provided. Based on the bill text, the measure appears framed as a targeted security and aviation-safety proposal rather than a broad expansion of surveillance authority, with multiple safeguards intended to address privacy, civil liberties, and airspace concerns. Its referral to the Subcommittee on Aviation suggests it is being handled as a technical and jurisdiction-specific security measure.
The main points of potential contention are the scope of NASA’s authority to intercept or access communications used to control drones, the privacy and civil liberties implications of those powers, and the possibility of interference with the national airspace system, wireless communications, or nearby public operations. The bill anticipates these concerns by requiring risk-based assessments, coordination with the FAA and other agencies, limits on data retention and disclosure, and reporting to Congress. Another possible issue is whether NASA should have this authority at all, given that the bill expressly states it does not grant broader powers beyond the specific counter-UAS functions described.