“By all indications, [small unmanned aerial systems] will present a safety and security risk to military installations and other critical infrastructure for the foreseeable future,” NORTHCOM boss Air Force general Gregory Guillot told reporters at the time. “Mitigating those risks requires a dedicated effort across all federal departments and agencies, state, local, tribal and territorial communities, and Congress to further develop the capabilities, coordination and legal authorities necessary for detecting, tracking and addressing potential sUAS threats in the homeland.”
But US military officials also indicated to reporters that the types of counter-drone capabilities the Pentagon may be able to bring to bear for domestic defense may be limited to non-kinetic “soft kill” means like RF and GPS signal jamming and other relatively low-tech interception techniques like nets and “string streamers” due to legal constraints on the US military’s ability to engage with drones over American soil.
“The threat, and the need to counter these threats, is growing faster than the policies and procedures that [are] in place can keep up with,” as Guillot told reporters during the counter-drone experiment. “A lot of the tasks we have in the homeland, it’s a very sophisticated environment in that it’s complicated from a regulatory perspective. It’s a very civilianized environment. It’s not a war zone.”
Defense officials echoed this sentiment during the unveiling of the Pentagon’s new counter-drone strategy in early December.
“The homeland is a very different environment in that we have a lot of hobbyist drones here that are no threat at all, that are sort of congesting the environment,” a senior US official told reporters at the time. “At the same time, we have, from a statutory perspective and from an intelligence perspective, quite rightly, [a] more constrained environment in terms of our ability to act.”
The statute in question, according to defense officials, is a specific subsection of Title 10 of the US Code, which governs the US armed forces. The section, known as 130(i), encompasses military authorities regarding the “protection of certain facilities and assets from unmanned aircraft.” It gives US forces the authority to take “action” to defend against drones, including with measures to “disrupt control of the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft, without prior consent, including by disabling the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft by intercepting, interfering, or causing interference with wire, oral, electronic, or radio communications used to control the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft” and to “use reasonable force to disable, damage, or destroy the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.”