SB 663, the DEFENSE Act, would amend the Homeland Security Act to allow the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General to deputize state or local law enforcement officers for a narrow counter-drone mission. The authority would be limited to protecting certain high-risk events and locations covered by temporary flight restrictions, including sites already subject to statutory flight restrictions, eligible large public gatherings, and other public gatherings protected by FAA-issued temporary flight restrictions.
The bill also requires that any deputized officer complete training on the use of the authority, with training standards set by DHS or DOJ in coordination with the Department of Transportation and the FAA. In addition, DHS, DOJ, DOT, and the FAA would oversee how the authority is used, and any detection, identification, monitoring, or tracking equipment used against unmanned aircraft systems would have to come from an approved list maintained by DHS in coordination with DOJ, FAA, FCC, and NTIA.
The bill would expand federal counter-unmanned aircraft authorities by expressly authorizing temporary deputization of state and local officers for event-security purposes. It would affect Section 210G of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and interact with existing FAA flight-restriction authorities under Title 49 and related appropriations-law protections for certain sites and events. The practical effect would be to broaden the pool of personnel who can help detect, identify, monitor, or track drones at protected gatherings, while imposing federal training, oversight, and equipment-approval requirements.
Based on the bill text and the limited available context, the measure appears to have a generally supportive and security-focused framing. It is bipartisan in sponsorship, introduced by Senator Cotton with Senator Rosen, which suggests cross-party interest in strengthening protections for major public events and sensitive sites. No committee transcript or vote record is available here, so there is no recorded floor or committee sentiment beyond the bill’s introduction and referral.
The main likely points of contention are the scope of federal counter-drone authority, the deputization of state and local officers, and the potential civil liberties, privacy, and aviation-safety implications of expanding drone interdiction powers. Another possible issue is the requirement that only approved equipment be used, which may raise questions about procurement, interoperability, and how quickly technology can be authorized. Because no debate transcript or vote history is provided, no specific member objections are documented, but these are the issues most likely to draw scrutiny from lawmakers concerned about overreach or implementation.