HB8697, the “Guard the Skies Act,” would expand federal authority to use the National Guard to help protect certain facilities and assets from unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as drones. The bill amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and titles 10 and 32 of the U.S. Code to create a specific pathway for the Secretary of Defense, at the request of a state’s chief executive, to authorize National Guard members to take counter-drone actions in support of designated missions involving national special security events and other covered facilities or assets.
The bill also updates coordination and consultation requirements among the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Department of Defense. It clarifies that Defense must be consulted before guidance or implementation that could affect these National Guard counter-UAS activities, and it ties the new authority to existing federal restrictions on aircraft interception and related criminal statutes by carving out a limited exception for authorized Guard operations. Additional amendments to title 10 and title 32 would allow certain reserve-component duty and drill activities to support these missions.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would modify federal law to expressly authorize National Guard participation in counter-unmanned aircraft operations for specified state-requested missions, while preserving a federal framework for oversight and interagency coordination. It would amend section 210G of the Homeland Security Act and add new section 130j to title 10, with conforming changes to title 32, thereby affecting how the National Guard may be ordered to duty, trained, and used in support of drone-defense operations. The bill would primarily affect state governors, the Department of Defense, DHS, FAA, and National Guard units tasked with protecting sensitive sites and events from drone threats.
Sentiment
Based on the bill’s sponsorship and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears broadly supportive and security-focused. The bipartisan list of original cosponsors suggests cross-party interest in expanding counter-drone capabilities for public safety and critical infrastructure protection. No opposition is documented in the supplied record, but the structure of the bill indicates an effort to balance state-requested National Guard support with federal oversight.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are jurisdictional and operational: who controls counter-drone authority, how much discretion states should have, and how the new National Guard role interacts with existing FAA, DHS, and Department of Defense responsibilities. The bill specifically requires Defense consultation before actions that might affect section 130j operations, which suggests concern about overlapping federal authorities and the need to avoid conflicts with aviation law and existing counter-UAS restrictions. Another possible issue is the scope of missions covered, especially around national special security events and other protected facilities, and whether the authorization is broad enough to be useful without creating unintended security or civil aviation risks.