OK To Shoot Down Cartel Drones Flying Over Border Sought By NORTHCOM Boss

Yahoo

02-04-2025

The general in charge of defending U.S. skies from drone incursions wants the authority to be able to shoot them down near the Mexican border. Current law greatly restricts U.S. military counter-drone responses, which you can read more about in our deep dive here.
Air Force Gen. Gregory M. Guillot testified to the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that since President Donald Trump took office, he 'proposed…a change to the rule of force.' It would 'allow us to shoot down or bring down drones that are surveilling over our deployed and mobile troops…not just that are in self-defense, but anything that's surveilling and planning the next attack on us within five miles of the border.'
'Because they're mobile,' U.S. troops on the border are not allowed to take down drones under current law, Guillot, the commander of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and the joint U.S.-Canadian North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), added.
His testimony came as Mexican drug cartels have been steadily increasing their use of weaponized uncrewed aerial systems (UAS), as well as unarmed types for surveillance and smuggling. The issue has been so concerning that the U.S. Army recently deployed ground-based radars along the border to help spot and track drones as part of the continued build-up of U.S. military support there. You can read more about that in our in-depth story here. The Trump administration has made border security one of its major priorities.
The issue of drones flying over the border is not new. As we have reported in the past, pilots have reported seeing and having near misses with them in the skies near Arizona ranges and military bases for years.
Guillot also repeated his call to enable all Continental U.S. bases to take action against drones. He also wants to increase the range those actions can take place. At present, only about half of the 360 bases in the U.S. – considered 'covered installations' – even have permission to defend against drones.
'We're working with the services and with the [Defense] Department to increase not only the capability but also to expand the authorities,' Guillot explained. 'We have to knock out not only aircraft or UAS that are a direct threat, but also that are surveilling over the installation. I'd like to even see it expanded beyond the installation to ensure they can't see anything sensitive on our bases.'
Expanding the perimeter where counter-drone actions can take place also increases the chances of identifying and capturing the drone operators, Guillot explained.
Guillot testified that he wants increased ability to take action granted under a federal law known as '130(i).' The subsection of Title 10 of the U.S. Code (10 USC 130i) covers current authorities for the 'protection of certain facilities and assets from unmanned aircraft,' including through the use of kinetic and non-kinetic capabilities. It contains a number of specific stipulations and where and when those authorities can actually be employed, which you can read more about here.
Any change in those authorities, which Congress is considering, would be on top of the Pentagon's counter-drone strategy released in the last days of the Biden administration, which you can read more about here.
As we previously reported, the U.S. is not ​​fielding kinetic and directed energy capabilities, such as laser and high-power microwave weapons, surface-to-air interceptors, and gun systems, to defend domestic bases and other critical infrastructure from rapidly growing and evolving drone threats. Instead, the focus is on electronic warfare and cyber warfare, and other 'soft-kill' options, at least for now.
The legal and regulatory hurdles limiting how and when counter-drone systems of any kind can be employed within the homeland are confusing even to the military and first responders.
Amid the frenzy of drone sightings reported over U.S. military and power facilities that we were the first to report about last November, runways at Stewart Airport in upstate New York were shut down because of a drone incursion in December. The airport is also home to an Air National Guard Base.
'Several very, very sizable drones came within 25 feet of our C-17 fleet,' said U.S. Rep. Pat Ryan during Tuesday's hearing.
Ryan said there was confusion at the time about how to respond. Base officials 'still don't have full clarity on authorities,' Ryan stated, adding that Stewart also lacks 'the tech and some of the other support pieces that they need.'
During the drone incursions over Langley Air Force Base in December 2023, which The War Zone was the first to report on, base officials were not given the authority to respond, the Congressman representing that district stated during the hearing.
The drones over Langley 'weren't trying to hide anything,' said U.S. Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA). 'I felt bad for the base commander because he wanted to do something and wasn't getting backing from folks up the chain of command. We had a bunch of resources there where we could do things. None of those were used. If it wasn't for NASA Langley next door, we wouldn't even have the sensors to be able to sense those unmanned aerial systems…'
That lack of response sent the wrong message to foreign adversaries who observed it, Wittman complained.
'I believe that our adversaries are probing, trying to figure out what we can do, what we can't do, and that's very telling to them what they saw that day or what they saw over that month,' he explained. 'It was very telling to them that there wasn't the type of reaction that was necessary.'
In the wake of the Langley incursion, NORTHCOM asked for and received 'responsibility to synchronize the DOD and if necessary, inter-agency response to counter UAS incursions,' Guillot told Wittman. 'During that time we conducted three assistive responses where we can use our new responsibilities to bring capabilities on a base similar to what you saw at Langley.'
He did not elaborate where or when those responses took place. NORTHCOM later told us Guillot was referring to Edwards Air Force Base,Vandenburg Space Force Base and Picatinny Arsenal.
While it is up to the military services and installations to defend the bases from drones, NORTHCOM is looking to surge counter-drone equipment to assist them in what Guillot calls 'flyaway kits' that include counter-drone equipment and the personnel to operate it.
'We don't have those kits yet, but we're in the process of acquiring' them, he told committee members.
Guillot's testimony and statements by legislators further highlight concerns about dangers posed by drones that The War Zone has been making for years. We laid out a detailed case through dozens of reports that adversaries were taking advantage of the lack of aerial domain awareness over and above the homeland. The issue has been complicated by the fact that unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), are also tied up in this deeply. You can read all about this here.
Congressional interest in mysterious UAS flying in the skies was further fueled by the so-called Jersey Drone craze. It began with sightings over Picatinny Arsenal and spread throughout the region to the point where the FBI fielded more than 5,000 reports. TWZ saw no evidence of large-scale drone incursions over New Jersey, with a chronic issue of people reporting normal aircraft as mysterious drones being glaringly apparent. The Biden administration repeatedly stated that there was no foreign connection to any of these flights. The Trump administration ultimately told the public that these drones were largely FAA-authorized or research-related.
During this period, U.S. air bases in England experienced a week-long spate of drones flying overhead, which The War Zone was also first to report. The origination of those drones and identity of their operators remains publicly unknown.
The Congressional reaction to Guillot's testimony seemed to heavily favor giving him more authority to shoot down drones near the border as well as all U.S. military installations. Given our long and leading interest in this topic, we will continue to monitor that progress.
Contact the author: [e-mail]