For as long as counter-drone technology has existed in the United States, the authority to actually do something about a hostile or errant drone — jam its control link, spoof its GPS, or physically knock it out of the sky — has belonged almost exclusively to a short list of federal agencies. That changes this month. The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice have jointly issued an interim final rule that, for the first time, opens counter-UAS detection and mitigation authority to state, local, Tribal and territorial (SLTT) law enforcement and correctional agencies.

The rule, published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2026 as document 2026-13609, took effect five days earlier, on July 1. It implements the SAFER SKIES Act and spans pages 41466–41516 of the Register, laying out who can operate counter-drone systems, what technology they're allowed to use, and how they have to coordinate with federal authorities before and after they use it.

What the Rule Actually Authorizes

The interim final rule creates a two-tiered structure for SLTT agencies seeking counter-UAS authority. The first tier covers detection-and-warning operations — identifying and tracking a drone without interfering with it. The second, more consequential tier covers mitigation operations: taking action to disable, disrupt, seize or destroy a drone. Each tier carries its own training and certification requirements, and agencies have to work through an authorized-technologies list rather than deploying whatever counter-drone hardware they can buy.

Mitigation is the significant departure here. As trade publication tij.news noted in its coverage of the Federal Register filing, the authority to intercept a drone's control signals or physically bring it down has historically been reserved for federal agencies, largely because doing so implicates federal statutes governing aircraft, wire communications, and computer access. Extending that authority to municipal police departments and county sheriffs — agencies that have never before had legal cover to jam or disable an aircraft — is a substantial expansion of who in the United States can lawfully interdict a drone in flight.

The rule also builds in guardrails around when that authority can be used. Per reporting from ASIS International's Security Management magazine, the regulation covers protection of large public gatherings, critical infrastructure, and correctional facilities — but explicitly prohibits agencies from using counter-UAS systems solely to collect evidence for a criminal prosecution. In other words, the rule is framed as a public-safety and infrastructure-protection tool, not an investigative one.

Spectrum Rules Add a Second Layer of Federal Sign-Off

Detecting and disabling a drone almost always means emitting or intercepting radio signals, which puts SLTT agencies squarely into FCC jurisdiction. A fact sheet published by the FCC alongside the DHS/DOJ rule spells out that requirement: agencies must obtain FCC authorization before operating counter-UAS equipment that emits radio waves, such as many detection radars, before they can use it. The FCC has said it may issue expedited Part 2 waivers in two scenarios — for equipment agencies are already using, and for equipment needed to respond to newly identified threats — a mechanism apparently designed to prevent the spectrum-authorization process from becoming a bottleneck once agencies start standing up programs under the new rule.

The rule also requires real-time coordination with the FAA on the airspace side. According to Security Management's summary, SLTT agencies must notify the FAA within five minutes of using any mitigation measure, or as soon as operationally practicable — a tight window meant to keep the agency responsible for the national airspace system informed almost as an incident unfolds, not after the fact.

An Interim Rule, Not a Settled One

Because this is an interim final rule rather than a standard notice-and-comment rulemaking, it is already in effect — but it isn't final. DHS and DOJ have opened a public comment period running through September 4, 2026, during which agencies, civil-liberties groups, industry, and the public can weigh in before the rule is finalized or revised.

That comment window is likely to draw significant attention. tij.news's writeup flagged the civil-liberties and privacy implications of handing interdiction powers to thousands of non-federal law enforcement entities across the country, a concern that tracks with long-standing debates over surveillance and use-of-force authority at the state and local level. The evidence-collection prohibition built into the rule appears to be a direct response to that concern, aimed at preventing counter-UAS systems from becoming a backdoor surveillance tool, but whether the training, certification, and technology-list requirements are sufficient to prevent misuse is exactly the kind of question the comment period exists to surface.

Why It Matters

This rule marks the first time SLTT law enforcement and correctional agencies have had a lawful federal pathway to detect and — critically — mitigate drones, rather than simply calling in a federal partner and waiting. For the counter-UAS industry, it opens an entirely new customer base: police departments, sheriff's offices, and correctional facilities that until now had no legal mechanism to buy and operate mitigation-capable systems, only detection gear. For public safety agencies, it means large events, jails, prisons, and critical infrastructure sites can be defended against hostile or reckless drones without waiting on federal assets that may be hours away. And for civil-liberties advocates, it raises the same questions that have followed the spread of cell-site simulators and other interdiction technology into local hands: whether training and paperwork requirements meaningfully constrain how thousands of independently governed agencies actually use signal-jamming and kinetic counter-drone tools once they have them. With the rule already in effect and a comment period running to early September, the fight over its final shape — and over how tightly the mitigation authority gets policed — is just getting started.

Sources