US military would be unleashed on enemy drones on the homeland if bipartisan bill passes
FIRST ON FOX: Dozens of drones that traipsed over Langley Air Force base in late 2023 revealed an astonishing oversight: Military officials did not believe they had the authority to shoot down the unmanned vehicles over the U.S. homeland.
A new bipartisan bill, known as the COUNTER Act, seeks to rectify that, offering more bases the opportunity to become a "covered facility," or one that has the authority to shoot down drones that encroach on their airspace.
The new bill has broad bipartisan and bicameral support, giving it a greater chance of becoming law. It's led by Armed Services Committee members Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., in the Senate, and companion legislation is being introduced by August Pfluger, R-Texas, and Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., in the House.
Currently, only half of the 360 domestic U.S. bases are considered "covered facilities" that are allowed to engage with unidentified drones. The legislation expands the narrow definition of a covered facility under current statute to allow all military facilities that have a well-defined perimeter to apply for approval that allows them to engage with drones.
Pentagon Lacks Counter-drone Procedure Leading To Incursions Like At Langley, Experts Say
The legislation also stipulates that the secretary of defense delegate authority to combatant commanders to engage drone attacks, cutting down on time to get approval through the chain of command in emergency situations.
Read On The Fox News App
"Leaving American military facilities vulnerable to drone incursions puts our service members, the general public and our national security at risk," Cotton said.
For more than two weeks in December 2023, a swarm of mystery drones flew into restricted airspace over Langley, home to key national security facilities and the F-22 Raptor stealth fighters.
Lack of a standard protocol for such incursions left Langley officials unsure of what to do, other than allow the 20-foot-long drones to hover near their classified facilities.
To this day, the Pentagon has said little about the incidents, other than to confirm that they occurred. Whether it knows where the drones came from or what they were doing is unclear.
"As commercial drones become more commonplace, we must ensure that they are not being used to share sensitive information with our adversaries, to conduct attacks against our service members, or otherwise pose a threat to our national security," Gillibrand said.
Planes, Stars And Hobbyists: Lawmakers Insist Nothing 'Nefarious' Is Happening In Nj Skies
As defense-minded lawmakers sought more answers, Langley officials referred them to the FBI, who referred them to Northern Command, who referred them to local law enforcement, a congressional source told Fox News Digital last year.
Gen. Gregory Guillot, chief of Northern Command (NORCOM) and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), said in February that there were over 350 unauthorized drone detections over military bases last year.
"The primary threat I see for them in the way they've been operating is detection and perhaps surveillance of sensitive capabilities on our installations," he said during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. "There were 350 detections reported last year on military installations, and that was 350 over a total of 100 different installations of all types and levels of security."
A surge in mysterious drone activity over New Jersey late last year and early this year prompted mass confusion.
Guillot said that regulations on UAV countermeasures created "significant vulnerabilities that have been exploited by known and unknown actors."
He advocated for what the new legislation would do: expand Section 130i of Title 10, which pertains to the protection of "certain facilities and assets from unmanned aircraft."
"I would propose and advocate for expansion of 130i [authorities] to include all military installations, not just covered installations," Guillot said during the hearing. "I'd also like to see the range expanded to slightly beyond the installation, so they don't have to wait for the threat to get over the installation before they can address it, because many of these systems can use side looking or slant range, and so they could … surveil the base from outside the perimeter. And under the current authorities, we can't address that."Original article source: US military would be unleashed on enemy drones on the homeland if bipartisan bill passes
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's travel ban could drive some African nations closer to America's adversaries
Donald Trump's travel ban, a purportedly security-focused measure largely targeting African nations and Muslim-majority countries, underscores his administration's ignorant and potentially destructive approach to a continent with growing global influence. In announcing the ban, Trump said it's meant to ensure the U.S. only allows people to enter who 'do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles.' Whereas the Biden administration took steps to ingratiate itself with African leaders and slough off some of the American paternalism that has driven some African nations closer to Russia and China in recent years, Trump's administration seems to have doubled down on an outmoded strategy of exploitation, conspiratorial brow-beating and ostracism. In just the first few months of Trump's second term, his administration has pressured African nations to permit Elon Musk's Starlink internet service to operate within their borders and has sought to use war-torn nations in Africa — including a country known for its human rights abuses — as landing spots for people booted from the U.S. as part of Trump's mass deportation plan. The president also personally turned the Oval Office into a screening room for bigoted conspiracy theories when he invited the president of South Africa to the White House and then bombarded him with false allegations of 'white genocide' being committed in his country. Needless to say, this hasn't helped the U.S. build on its rapport with African nations. And fundamentally, what that could mean for the U.S. is that a continent full of countries that American officials have pinpointed as crucial partners in our geopolitical strategies related to security and commerce could drift further toward our adversaries. That's certainly the vibe given off by the African Union Commission and its dozens of member states, which denounced Trump's travel ban and warned about its potential impacts. 'The Commission remains concerned about the potential negative impact of such measures on people-to-people ties, educational exchange, commercial engagement, and the broader diplomatic relations that have been carefully nurtured over decades. Africa and the United States share mutual interests in promoting peace, prosperity, and global cooperation,' the commission said in a statement, adding: 'The African Union Commission respectfully calls upon the U.S. Administration to consider adopting a more consultative approach and to engage in constructive dialogue with the countries concerned.' University of Michigan economics professor Justin Wolfers identified one clear way that Trump's travel ban could harm the American economy. 'One obvious economic implication of the latest travel ban is that genuinely international conferences will no longer be held in the U.S.,' he wrote on X. And that may just be the tip of the iceberg. It's also true that the materials used to make batteries in everything from cutting-edge cars to phones and computers most often come from African mines. Which is to say: Trump's cold shoulder toward African nations could have dire consequences for America's future, particularly with regard to the economy and U.S. national security. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If Viewers Love PBS So Much, Let Them Pay for It
Nearly universal support on Capitol Hill for the "big, beautiful bill" is a powerful reminder that Republicans love to run for office on a platform of cutting spending and then immediately betray that promise once they actually have the power to fulfill it. President Donald Trump, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and most of the Republican caucus are working tirelessly to pass a budget that would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit. Virtually the only political figures remaining consistent in their opposition to increased spending are Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), and Elon Musk, who is currently venting his frustration with Trump on X. Suffice it to say, genuine attempts to cut federal spending are unusual. One bright spot, however, is Trump's move to cut funding to publicly subsidized media: National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Libertarians and conservatives have long wondered why the government is in the business of subsidizing news or children's programming, especially when that programming evinces a pro-liberal bias, as was obviously the case with NPR and its president, Katherine Maher. PBS may be marginally more defensible on its own merits, but in the year 2025, it is simply not the case that the channel is meeting some need that the market fails to provide for. YouTube is brimming with high-quality, free (i.e. advertiser-supported) educational content for kids. If Big Bird is a better product, let him stand on his two legs—people will pay to watch him. Defenders of continued taxpayer support for PBS deploy all sorts of counterarguments. But one new development merits a response. A trio of researchers—Christopher Ali, Hilde Van den Bulck, and Jonathan Kropko—published their study, "An island of trust: public broadcasting in the United States," in which they argue that PBS is an atypically trusted source of information, and thus deserves continued public support. In a writeup of their paper, published by Nieman Lab—Harvard University's investigative journalism foundation—the researchers argue that "Americans trust PBS because it's publicly funded, not in spite of it." "Very little seems to unite Americans these days," the authors write. "Trust in government and public institutions is precipitously low. PBS bucks this trend. It is an 'island of trust' in an ocean of what some call 'post-trust' and others call 'post-truth.' It can be the focal point for a renewed spirit of American public discussions, a commitment to journalism, and a platform to recultivate trust." One issue: The study measured trust in PBS, not among all Americans, but among viewers of PBS. That was the sample: survey respondents who themselves watch PBS. This is hardly a surprising finding—and is not whatsoever grounds for public funding. Regular viewers of Fox News, for instance, place very high levels of trust in Fox News. Does that mean all Americans do? Does it mean that Fox News should receive public funding? One doubts that the researchers would agree with such an argument. In any case, they did not respond to a request for comment. For more on Trump's efforts to defund NPR and PBS, read Reason's Jesse Walker. I am joined by Amber Duke to discuss Elon Musk's understandable outrage over Nazi-salute double standards, the attack on Jewish demonstrators in Colorado, Joy Behar's brilliant campaign advice, Stephen Miller clashing with CNN, and Joe Rogan vs. Bono on the U.S. Agency for International Development. I'm waiting to get my Nintendo Switch 2 until I have more free time on my schedule. Right now, I am playing the Mega Man X Legacy collection, which includes the first four games. I've loved these games since I was a kid, though I had forgotten how steep the difficulty curve is. X-1 is pretty easy overall, but I don't understand how you could possibly find all the hidden power-ups in 2 and 3 without help. I've beaten them before, and I still don't remember where to find everything. The post If Viewers Love PBS So Much, Let Them Pay for It appeared first on
27 minutes ago
Can Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist, become the next mayor of New York City?
NEW YORK -- Zohran Mamdani has buzz and some momentum in New York City's mayoral race. But can a 33-year-old democratic socialist — or anyone else — beat former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary? Mamdani picked up a key endorsement Thursday from U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who said in a statement that the state lawmaker 'has demonstrated a real ability on the ground to put together a coalition of working-class New Yorkers that is strongest to lead the pack.' The endorsement, made the day after the first Democratic debate of the campaign, is likely to help solidify Mamdani's standing as a liberal darling in the contest, now in its final three weeks. It remains to be seen whether it will help him overcome Cuomo, whose campaign juggernaut has won the backing of some of the cities biggest unions as he attempts a comeback from the sexual harassment scandal that ended his reign as governor in 2021. Mamdani's laser-focus on lowering the cost of living in one of the world's most expensive cities has helped him climb from relative obscurity to become one of the race's leading figures. His criticisms of Israel, socialist label, and relative lack of experience could hurt him, though, with centrists. Mamdani, who would be the city's first Muslim and Indian American mayor, was born in Kampala, Uganda, before he and his family moved to New York City when he was 7. He became naturalized as an American citizen a few years after graduating from college, where he co-started his school's first Students for Justice in Palestine chapter. His mother, Mira Nair, is an award-winning filmmaker. His father, Mahmood Mamdani, is an anthropology professor at Columbia University. Zohran Mamdani was elected to the state Assembly in 2020, representing a district in Queens. His most-known legislative accomplishment was pushing through a pilot program that made a handful of city buses free for a year. His mayoral campaign has been full of big promises — free child care, free buses, a rent freeze for people living in rent-regulated apartments, new affordable housing and raising taxes on the wealthy — all packaged in well-produced social media videos. Critics say his hopeful visions get blurry when it comes to detail, and have also questioned the cost and feasibility of his proposals, many of which would need support from the state Legislature and governor. Cuomo, during Wednesday night's debate, took aim at Mamdani's relative inexperience, saying the state Assembly member has a good online presence but actually 'produces nothing,' adding "He's been in government 27 minutes. He's passed three bills. That's all he's done.' Some Jewish voters, an important voting bloc, might be turned off by Mamdani's support of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and his use of the term 'genocide' to describe Israel's war on Gaza. Mamdani has also vowed to have Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrested if he came to the city. The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu last year, saying he had committed war crimes by using starvation as a weapon during Israel's military campaign in Gaza. Pressed during the debate on whether he thought Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state, Mamdani said 'I believe Israel has the right to exist,' but 'as a state with equal rights' for people who aren't Jewish. As the June 24 primary approaches, Mamdani appears aware of another issue he and every other candidate not named Cuomo is having: name recognition. Mamdani, in a recent social media video, noted that "a third of New Yorkers still haven't heard of us," though he framed that as a positive, indicating he still has room to grow. At a recent election rally in Manhattan, Maria Walles, a 54-year-old Bronx voter, said she didn't like Cuomo or Eric Adams, the incumbent mayor who faced federal corruption charges, then decided to skip the Democratic primary and run as an independent after President Donald Trump's Justice Department abandoned that prosecution. But Walles said she wasn't quite sure about the alternative candidates. 'Zo ...," she said, grasping for Mamdani's name when asked about the candidate field. As it turns out, Mamdani was at the rally, which was organized by a tenant advocacy group, and received a standing ovation for his speech. To win, Mamdani will need to expand his support beyond the city's young, progressive crowd to the more moderate voters who have been a critical factor in past elections. In an interview with The Associated Press, Mamdani said if you speak to the people directly about issues they care about, such as the sky-high cost of living, you can successfully build a coalition, regardless of "what we have been told is the politics that can succeed in this city and the ways in which we have been told how to run a campaign and who we actually have to speak to.' 'Often times people try to characterize New York City politics through the lens of political constituencies that they define as hard and fast. And in reality there is no ideological majority in New York City," he said.
