
How the U.S. is confronting the threat posed by drones swarming sensitive national security sites
Last month – the head of NORAD and NORTHCOM – the military commands that defend North America – told Congress some of those mysterious drones seen flying inside the United States may indeed have been spying. He did not say for whom. 60 Minutes has been looking into a series of eerily similar incidents – going back years – including those attention getting flyovers in New Jerse y recently. In each, drones first appeared over restricted military or civilian sites, coming and going – often literally – "under the radar." The wake-up call came just over a year ago, when drones invaded the skies above Langley Air Force base in Virginia over 17 nights, forcing the relocation of our most advanced fighter jets. Our story starts with an eyewitness and an iPhone.
Jonathan Butner: Close around 7 o'clock, I would say, I started seeing these reddish, orange flashing lights that were starting to come in from the Virginia Beach area. It began slowly, like, one at a time.
Jonathan Butner's close encounter with drones came on Dec. 14, 2023. He was at his family's cabin on the James River in Virginia, about 100 miles south of Washington, D.C, with a commanding view of several military installations across the water.
Jonathan Butner: They started really coming in, like, almost, like, on a conveyor belt.
Bill Whitaker: How many in total?
Jonathan Butner: I probably saw upwards of 40 plus. When I first saw that, I was like, "Those are going directly over Langley Air Force Base."
Langley is one of the most critical air bases on the East Coast – home to dozens of F-22 Raptors, the most advanced stealth fighter jets ever built. Butner says from his perch he has seen it all.
Jonathan Butner: I'm very familiar with all the different types of military craft. We have Blackhawks, we have the F-22s. And these were like nothing I've ever seen.
Butner took these iPhone videos of the objects coming and going for nearly an hour and a half. These are the only public videos of the drones over Langley.
Bill Whitaker: Here's another one.
Jonathan Butner: Yes.
He shared this video with the FBI for its investigation.
Bill Whitaker: And another.
Jonathan Butner: Yes.
Gen. Mark Kelly (retired): The reports were coming in 20-to-30 sightings, same time every evening, 30-to-45 minutes after sunset.
Retired four-star Gen. Mark Kelly was the highest-ranking officer at Langley to witness the swarm. A veteran fighter pilot, Kelly went up to the roof of a squadron headquarters for an unobstructed view of the airborne invaders.
Bill Whitaker: So what'd you see?
Gen. Mark Kelly (retired): Well, what you saw was different sizes of incursions of aircraft. You saw different altitudes, different air speeds. Some were rather loud. Some weren't near as loud.
Bill Whitaker: What was the smallest one? What was the largest one?
Gen. Mark Kelly (retired): The smallest, you know you're talking about a commercial-size quadcopter. And then the largest ones are probably size what I would call a bass boat or a small car.
Bill Whitaker: The size of a small car?
Gen. Mark Kelly (retired): Mhmm (affirm).
At the time, Gen. Glen VanHerck was joint commander of NORAD and NORTHCOM, the military commands that protect North American airspace. He has since retired.
Gen. Glen VanHerck (retired): I actually provided support in the form of fighters, airborne warning and control platforms, helicopters to try to further categorize what those drones were at the time.
Ten months earlier, he ordered an F-22 from Langley to shoot down that Chinese spy balloon over the Atlantic after it had sailed across the U.S., but this time, he found himself ill-equipped to respond. NORAD's radar systems, designed during the Cold War to detect high-altitude air, space or missile attacks, were unable to detect low flying drones that could be seen with the naked eye.
Bill Whitaker: Why don't we just shoot them down?
Gen. Glen VanHerck (retired): Well, first, you have to have the capability to detect, track, identify, make sure it's not a civilian airplane flying around. If you can do that, Bill, then it becomes a safety issue for the American public. Firing missiles in our homeland is not taken lightly.
Bill Whitaker: We're not able to track them? We're not able to see where they originate?
Gen. Glen VanHerck (retired): No, it's the capability gap. Certainly they can come and go from any direction. The FBI is looking at potential options. But they don't have an answer right now.
And there haven't been answers for similar encroachments for more than five years.
In 2019, naval warships training off the California coast were shadowed for weeks by dozens of drones. For years, the pentagon did little to dispel speculation these images, taken with night vision equipment, were UFOs. But ships' logs show they were identified as drones at the time. and the Navy suspected they came from this Hong Kong flagged freighter sailing nearby, but couldn't prove it.
Since then, the defense news site, The War Zone, has documented dozens of drone intrusions at sensitive infrastructure and military installations: in 2019, the Palo Verde nuclear plant in Arizona, the largest power producer in the country; in 2024, an experimental weapons site in Southern California where defense contractors are building the next generation of stealth bombers.
Last December, the Army confirmed 11 drone sightings over the Picatinny Arsenal in northern New Jersey, where advanced weapons are designed and built, which ignited a public frenzy, with sightings of unidentified flying objects all over the region.
While much of the country was fixated on New Jersey, another swarm of drones was disrupting operations at an a ir base in the U.K. where U.S. nuclear weapons have been stored.
Sen. Roger Wicker: Clearly, there is a military intelligence aspect of this.
Republican Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi is chairman of the Armed Services Committee that oversees the Pentagon. We talked to him this past December.
Bill Whitaker: Do you believe that these drones are a spying system, a spying platform?
Sen. Roger Wicker: What would a logical person conclude?
Bill Whitaker: That. That these are spying incursions.
Sen. Roger Wicker: Yes. And, and yet I can tell you, I am privy to, to classified briefings at the highest level. I think the Pentagon and the National Security advisors are still mystified.
Bill Whitaker: Still mystified?
Sen. Roger Wicker: Yes.
More alarming: with drones overhead, some of the F-22s stationed at Langley were moved to a nearby air base for their own protection. There's a new wartime reality: drones that can spy can also destroy. Deep inside Russia, advanced aircraft have been destroyed by Ukrainian drones. Gen. VanHerck told us drones could do the same thing here.
Gen. Glen VanHerck (retired): I have seen video of drones in various sizes flying over the F-22 flightline at Langley.
Bill Whitaker: What's your reaction to that? They could drop ordnance on them, drop bombs on, they could crash into them to disable them. Was that a concern?
Gen. Glen VanHerck (retired): Absolutely it's a concern. A small UAS, or drones, can do a myriad of missions.
President Biden was informed of the Langley intrusions, and meetings were held at the White House to figure out how to bring the drones down. But after 17 nights, the drone visitations stopped. A senior official in the Biden White House later downplayed the incident to 60 Minutes, saying it was likely the work of hobbyists.
Bill Whitaker: From what you saw, did you rule out that these might be hobbyists sending these drones up?
Gen. Glen VanHerck (retired): No. It would be my assessment they weren't hobbyists because of the magnitude of the events, the sizes of some of the drones, and the duration.
Bill Whitaker: So what's going on?
Gen. Glen VanHerck (retired): Well, I wish I had the answer. It certainly could have a foreign nexus, a threat nexus. They could be doing anything, from surveilling critical infrastructure, just to the point of embarrassing us from the fact that they can do this on a day-to-day basis and then we're not able to do anything about it.
In overseas war zones, the U.S. military has broad authority to bring down menacing drones with gunfire, missiles, and electronic jamming. Here at home, any of those actions would pose a threat to civilians on the ground and in the air.
Gen. Gregory Guillot: Well, we certainly need new systems to counter this threat.
A year ago, Gen. Gregory Guillot – a combat veteran – took control of NORAD and NORTHCOM. He ordered a 90-day assessment of operations and says the drones – or UAVs – at Langley became the centerpiece.
Bill Whitaker: We're the most powerful military on the face of the earth. And yet, drones could fly over a major Air Force base and we couldn't stop them? How is that possible?
Gen. Gregory Guillot: Well, I think the, the threat got ahead of our ability to detect and, and track the threat. I think all eyes were, rightfully, overseas, where UAVs were being used on one-way attack to attack U.S. and coalition service members. And the threat in the U.S. probably caught us by surprise a little bit.
Bill Whitaker: As it stands today, could you detect a swarm of drones flying over or flying into the airspace at Langley? Could you detect that today?
Gen. Gregory Guillot: At low altitude, probably not with your standard FAA or surveillance radars.
Complicating his efforts: bureaucracy. When the drones flew outside the perimeter of Langley Air Force Base, other agencies had jurisdiction: the Coast Guard, FAA, FBI, and local police. There was no one agency in charge.
Bill Whitaker: So what did you determine went on at Langley?
Gen. Gregory Guillot: Well, that-- that-- that investigation is still ongoing. So I don't think w-- we know-- entirely what happened.
Bill Whitaker: You know, when we hear things from the White House that it's not deemed a threat, it seems to me that this is, alarming. I mean, this is kind of hair on fire time.
Gen. Gregory Guillot: It is alarming. And, I would say that our hair is on fire here in, in NORTHCOM, in a controlled way. And we're moving out extremely quickly.
This past November, Gen. Guillot was given the authority to cut through the red tape and coordinate counter drone efforts across multiple government agencies. He says new, more sensitive radar systems are being installed at strategic bases, and NORTHCOM is developing what it calls fly-away kits with the latest anti-drone technology – to be delivered to bases besieged by drones.
Gen. Gregory Guillot: My goal is inside of a year that we would have the flyaway kit capability to augment the services and the installations if they're necessary.
Bill Whitaker: So within a year, were Langley to happen again, there'd be some ability to respond?
Gen. Gregory Guillot: That's my goal.
His predecessor, Glen VanHerck, says the Pentagon, White House, and Congress have underestimated this massive vulnerability for far too long.
Gen. Glen VanHerck (retired): It's been one year since Langley had their drone incursion and we don't have the policies and laws in place to deal with this? That's not a sense of urgency.
Bill Whitaker: Why do you think that is?
Gen. Glen VanHerck (retired): I think it's because there's a perception that this is fortress America: two oceans on the east and west, with friendly nations north and south, and nobody's gonna attack our homeland. It's time we move beyond that assumption.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Skift
16 minutes ago
- Skift
Junk Fees, Airport Security, No Tax on Tips: 7 Travel Bills in Congress We're Tracking
Although travel isn't at the top of Congress' agenda, lawmakers in Washington are discussing several bills that would impact the industry. Travel and tourism isn't at the top of Congress' agenda, which this month is dominated by debate over the President Donald Trump-backed 'big, beautiful' tax and spending bill. But that doesn't mean that lawmakers aren't attempting to make laws that would directly affect the hotel, lodging, air travel, and cruise industries. Here are seven such federal bills to watch heading into the summer: 1: Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025 Introduced by Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.), this bipartisan bill targets 'unfair and deceptive advertising of prices for hotel rooms and other places of short-term lodging.' Bill co-sponsors include Reps. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), Russell Fry (R-S.C.), Kevin Mullin (D-Calif.), Craig Goldman (R-Texas), Eugene Vindman (D-Va.) and André Carson (D-Ind.). The bill mandates that hotels and short-term rental providers must: Display the 'total services price, if a price is displayed, in any advertisement, marketing, or price list wherever the covered services are displayed, advertised, marketed, or offered for sale.' Disclose 'the total services price at the time the covered services are first displayed to [an] individual and anytime thereafter throughout the covered services purchasing process.' Disclose before a final purchase 'any tax, fee, or assessment imposed by any government entity, quasi-government entity, or government-created special district or program on the sale of covered services.' The bill passed the U.S. House on a voice vote in April. The U.S. Senate is now considering the measure. There, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) has introduced a Senate version of the Hotel Fees and Transparency Act of 2025, which is co-sponsored by Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Shelley Moo

Wall Street Journal
20 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
How Can Congress Keep American Jews Safe?
Your editorial 'The Intifada Comes to Boulder' (June 3) rightly states that the recent violent attacks against American Jews, in Colorado and Washington, 'are intended to terrorize the Jewish diaspora.' You advise that this will get worse 'if it isn't denounced by all political sides.' That's true, but it mustn't be the end of the discussion. Republican and Democratic politicians have condemned these heinous attacks. What the American Jewish community needs now are concrete steps to keep us more safe and secure. Congress has underfunded the Nonprofit Security Grant Program—the largest federal program to support security at synagogues and other Jewish sites—administered by the Department of Homeland Security. For 2025, Congress appropriated $275 million for NSGP grants. Last year more than $900 million in applications were submitted. Congress should appropriate at least $500 million for NSGP grants for the coming year.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pentagon Wants To Shift Funds From Navy F/A-XX To USAF F-47: Report
The U.S. Navy's F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter program looks to have hit another snag, with the Pentagon reportedly prioritizing the Air Force's F-47 stealth fighter, amid concerns about how to run the two efforts simultaneously. Already, the F/A-XX was in limbo, with a U.S. official telling TWZ last month that the future of the program was still being reviewed. This came after reports that a contract award for the Navy's new combat jet could be delayed by as much as three years. Navy officials, meanwhile, continue to stress the importance of the F/A-XX to their plans. 'There's certainly a strong requirement for a sixth-gen fighter still,' Dr. Brett A. Seidle, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition (RD&A), said yesterday. 'I know there's a lot of discussion about [F/A-XX] right now, but the Navy position on that is there's a requirement that's necessary.' Seidle was speaking at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Seapower and Projection Forces. His comments came in response to questions from U.S. Rep. Joseph David Courtney, the Democrat representative for Connecticut's 2nd congressional district. You can see that exchange in the video below, starting at the 35.25 mark: The hearing followed a Pentagon request last month to the House and Senate defense policy committees, which was seen by Bloomberg News, warning that 'Simultaneously pursuing two sixth-generation fighters risks under-delivery on both.' 'Given the schedule delays and cost growth across numerous airframes, DoD recommends a focus on the F-47, giving the Navy's F/A-XX program time for technical maturity and development,' the Pentagon request added. 'Phasing the F/A-XX after the Air Force's initial F-47 development will alleviate capacity concerns in the industrial base.' Exactly why there should be concerns about industrial capacity is somewhat unclear, although that could be a factor were Boeing to win the F/A-XX contract on top of the F-47. On the other hand, with Northrop Grumman busy with the B-21 stealth bomber, which still needs to get through flight testing, adding a few years to the F/A-XX timeline could mitigate risk there, were this contractor to walk away with F/A-XX. Reportedly, the U.S. Department of Defense requested that Congress shift $500 million from F/A-XX to the F-47, the contract for which was awarded to Boeing in March. Previously, these funds were allocated for the 'accelerated development' of the Navy fighter. There is now something of a battle between the Pentagon Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and the House Armed Services Committee (HASC). On the one hand, the F-47 is considered by the Pentagon to have 'full presidential support,' making it a priority for the $500 million that the House Armed Services Committee had added to the F/A-XX program under President Donald Trump's sweeping $3.9-trillion tax breaks package. While we previously reported on Pentagon recommendations to withhold $500 million from the F/A-XX program, it wasn't previously understood that it wanted to redirect this to the Air Force's equivalent effort, the F-47. The House Armed Services Committee is now seeking to block the funds from being redirected to the F-47, arguing that the Pentagon hasn't provided an adequate reason for this. Heather Vaughan, a committee spokesperson, told Bloomberg News that the Pentagon 'has yet to brief the committee on any changes for its plans to develop and procure' the Navy's new stealth jet. 'Absent any new information from the Navy concerning revision to defined capability gaps and shortfalls, mission requirements, cost, or acquisition strategy for F/A-XX, the committee continues to support the development of this critical platform,' Vaughan added. Earlier this week, the Senate Armed Services Committee released its defense section of the tax breaks package, which includes $750 million to 'accelerate the F/A-XX aircraft.' Originally, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman were all in the running to develop the F/A-XX. However, Lockheed Martin was reportedly eliminated from the competition in March because its proposal 'did not satisfy the service's criteria,' according to Breaking Defense, whose story cited an unnamed source with knowledge of the program. Any holdups to the F/A-XX program will be a worry for the Navy. The service considers a sixth-generation combat aircraft as a prerequisite for the future carrier air wing, especially in terms of a potential confrontation with China in the Indo-Pacific theater. 'The sixth-gen fighter has some capabilities that we need to counter the PRC,' Navy Adm. James W. Kilby, acting Chief of Naval Operations, said of the F/A-XX last month. 'Those are signatures, those are range, those are different engines. Those are all the things that will make it survivable. The Air Force and Navy have different missions, but we're going against the same threat.' Last month, a U.S. official, speaking to TWZ on condition of anonymity, denied reports that the F/A-XX program contract award could be delayed by as much as three years. 'Nothing is being delayed,' the official stated. 'A decision hasn't been made yet. That decision is still being determined by [the Pentagon] and service leaders, with conversations among Congress as well. It's a big program. Obviously, these things don't get settled on by one individual. Leaders are making a decision on whether to invest. It's all part of the process.' The Navy had planned for the F/A-XX aircraft to enter service in the 2030s and thereafter to replace F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighters and EA-18G Growler electronic attack jets. According to a 2025 Naval Aviation Playbook, the F/A-XX 'is expected to feature superior range, speed, and sensor capabilities, with an emphasis on integrating manned and unmanned systems. This includes collaboration with autonomous drones serving as force multipliers and electronic warfare assets.' In regards to the range, it emerged earlier this year that the F/A-XX may offer just a 25 percent increase in this respect over the existing tactical combat jets in its carrier air wings. That disclosure is surprising, given that the service consistently makes it clear that extending the reach of its carrier strike groups and thus enhancing their survivability is a critical priority, as the range of expected threats also continues to grow. Regardless, the continued funding dispute may well still derail the current timeline for F/A-XX. In a report last month, Reuters wrote that the Pentagon's main issue about the F/A-XX program was 'concerns about engineering and production capacity,' but didn't elaborate further. If the F/A-XX does end up being delayed, the Navy might well have to look again at its tactical fighter fleet to avoid shortfalls. One immediate result would be the service relying longer than expected on its aging fleets of Super Hornets and Growlers. At one stage, the Super Hornet production line was expected to be shut down this year. However, in March of last year, the Navy issued Boeing a $1.3-billion contract for 17 new Super Hornets with a final delivery planned for spring 2027 at the latest. Buying more Super Hornets could be an option, but such a move would have to be made before the line is closed. An alternative would be to push more resources toward the F-35C stealth fighter, which the Navy has introduced to replace the last of its 'legacy' Hornets. As well as the baseline F-35C, Lockheed Martin is increasingly looking at the potential of further advanced developments of the Joint Strike Fighter, something the company has previously described as a 'Ferrari' or 'NASCAR upgrade' to the F-35's core 'chassis.' This could include a substantial fuselage redesign. With a future Pacific fight very much on its mind, neither of these options would be ideal for the Navy, and the current uncertainty around the F/A-XX program is very much bad news for the service. It's also worth considering the Navy's approach for the fleets of carrier-capable drone wingmen that it wants to accompany crewed combat aircraft in the future. As it now stands, the service wants its Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) designs to cost no more than $15 million to buy and have zero long-term sustainment costs. At the same time, there are signs the Navy may not be moving as quickly on CCAs as the Air Force, as you can read about here. Meanwhile, if the Pentagon gets its way and is able to inject another $500 million into the F-47, that will only help realize its goal to have the next-generation Air Force combat jet flying before the end of the current Trump administration. Contact the author: thomas@