LANDED Act
đź“ť TL;DR
The LANDED Act would authorize state law enforcement to intercept, seize, and destroy drones through federal partnerships, creating the first systematic state-level counter-drone program in the U.S. The bill includes oversight requirements, federal funding for equipment, and a deconfliction system to prevent targeting of legitimate government drones. It represents a significant expansion of state authority into traditionally federal domains of airspace and communications regulation.
Sign in to view AI summaries
Get plain English explanations of what this bill actually does.
Sign in with XPlain English Explanation
The LANDED Act (H.R. 10555) represents a significant expansion of drone counter-surveillance capabilities by authorizing state law enforcement agencies to detect, intercept, and neutralize unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) deemed to pose security threats. Introduced in December 2024 following increased public concern about drone activity near sensitive installations, the bill creates formal mechanisms for federal-state cooperation in counter-drone operations while establishing oversight and reporting requirements. The legislation grants state agencies unprecedented authority to interfere with drone communications, seize aircraft, and even use force to destroy drones, powers traditionally reserved for federal agencies due to complex jurisdictional issues involving airspace regulation and communications law.
Detailed Analysis
The bill operates through a structured application and agreement process administered by the Department of Homeland Security in coordination with the Attorney General and FAA Administrator. Section 3 establishes the core mechanism: state law enforcement agencies must apply for authorization to acquire and deploy 'approved counter-UAS mitigation systems,' with each approval resulting in a detailed agreement specifying operational parameters, time periods, and reporting requirements. Notably, Section 3(d) provides explicit exemptions from federal laws that typically prohibit interference with aircraft and communications, including sections of the U.S. Code governing aircraft interference and wiretapping.
The legislation includes significant safeguards and oversight mechanisms. For the first 180 days after deployment, the Secretary of Homeland Security must approve each mitigation action on a case-by-case basis, with immediate notification to the FAA required. Section 3(h)(3) mandates detailed post-event reports within 24 hours of any drone mitigation action. The bill also addresses spectrum interference concerns by requiring consultation with the FCC to ensure counter-drone systems don't disrupt civilian communications networks.
Section 4 introduces a mandatory deconfliction system designed to prevent state agencies from inadvertently targeting legitimate government drone operations. This creates a database of authorized drone operations with transponder IDs, allowing agencies to verify whether a drone is conducting official business before taking mitigation action. The rapid response provision in Section 5 allows for emergency bypass of normal procedures when states request immediate federal assistance.
The grant program established in Section 6 provides federal funding for state acquisition of counter-drone equipment and training, with a minimum 24-month performance period. Section 7 mandates a comprehensive review by the Defense Department's Inspector General focusing on foreign adversary drone activity and instances where the executive branch allegedly withheld UAP information from Congress, suggesting this legislation responds to broader concerns about transparency and foreign surveillance capabilities.
🎯 Key Provisions
State Law Enforcement Counter-UAS Authorization: Authorizes state agencies to acquire and deploy counter-drone systems through a federal application process, with detailed agreements specifying operational parameters and oversight requirements. (Section 3(a) - 'the Secretary of Homeland Security...shall establish appropriate policies, procedures, and protocols necessary to allow the State law enforcement agency in each State...to acquire, deploy, operate, and train with approved counter-UAS mitigation systems')
Broad Mitigation Powers: Grants state agencies authority to intercept drone communications, seize control of aircraft, confiscate drones, and use reasonable force to destroy them when responding to credible threats. (Section 3(g) - Actions include 'Seize or exercise control of the unmanned aircraft system' and 'Use reasonable force, if necessary, to disable, damage, or destroy the unmanned aircraft system')
Federal Law Exemptions: Provides explicit exemptions from federal laws prohibiting aircraft interference and communications interception for authorized state counter-drone operations. (Section 3(d) - 'Notwithstanding section 46502 of title 49, United States Code, or sections 32, 1030, 1367 and chapters 119 and 206 of title 18, United States Code' state agencies may take authorized mitigation actions)
Mandatory Deconfliction Database: Requires establishment of a reporting system to prevent targeting of legitimate government drone operations by maintaining a database of authorized flights with transponder information. (Section 4(b)(2) - Database must contain 'a drone which is currently being used in a non-emergency operation's transponder ID and the date and time of its usage')
Case-by-Case Federal Approval: Requires DHS Secretary to personally approve each drone mitigation action for the first 180 days, with immediate FAA notification and detailed post-event reporting within 24 hours. (Section 3(h)(1) - 'the Secretary of Homeland Security shall expressly approve, on a case-by-case basis, the mitigation of unmanned aircraft system by a State law enforcement agency')
Counter-UAS Security Grant Program: Establishes federal grant program to fund state acquisition of counter-drone equipment and personnel training with minimum 24-month performance periods. (Section 6(a) - 'There is established in the Department a program to be known as the Counter-UAS Security Grant Program...shall make grants to eligible state law enforcement and emergency management agencies')
đź‘Ą Impact Analysis
Direct Effects If enacted, this legislation would fundamentally alter the landscape of drone enforcement in the United States by deputizing state law enforcement agencies with counter-drone capabilities previously limited to federal agencies. State police, sheriffs' departments, and other local agencies could legally intercept drone communications, take control of aircraft, and destroy drones they deem threatening—powers that override traditional federal jurisdiction over airspace and communications. The mandatory deconfliction database would require all government agencies operating drones to register their flights, creating unprecedented visibility into official drone operations across all levels of government.
The grant program would likely accelerate adoption of counter-drone technology at the state level, potentially creating a patchwork of varying capabilities and protocols across different jurisdictions. The 180-day federal approval period creates a temporary bottleneck that could either serve as an effective oversight mechanism or create dangerous delays in responding to genuine threats, depending on implementation efficiency.
Indirect Effects The legislation could significantly impact commercial drone operations and privacy rights, as the broad definition of 'threats' includes potential economic damage and risks to critical infrastructure—language that could encompass legitimate commercial or recreational drone activities. The bill's exemptions from wiretapping and communications laws may face constitutional challenges and could set precedent for expanded surveillance powers. International implications include potential diplomatic tensions if foreign commercial or governmental drones are intercepted, and possible reciprocal actions by other nations against U.S. drone operations abroad.
Affected Groups - State and local law enforcement agencies - Commercial drone operators - Recreational drone users - Federal aviation regulators - Telecommunications companies - Critical infrastructure operators - Privacy advocates - Foreign governments operating drones in U.S. airspace
Fiscal Impact The bill authorizes spending for the Counter-UAS Security Grant Program and various federal coordination activities, but does not specify appropriation amounts, stating activities are 'subject to the availability of appropriations for such purpose.' Costs would include federal grants to states for equipment acquisition and training, administrative expenses for the application and oversight process, database development and maintenance for the deconfliction system, and personnel costs for case-by-case approval processes. The Inspector General review mandated in Section 7 would require additional DOD resources. Without specified funding levels, the actual fiscal impact depends entirely on future appropriations decisions by Congress.
đź“‹ Latest Action
12/20/2024
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Homeland Security, and Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.