OK To Shoot Down Cartel Drones Flying Over Border Sought By NORTHCOM Boss
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: howard@thewarzone.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Alberta resumes buying U.S. alcohol, months after pause meant to fight tariffs
EDMONTON - Alberta is buying American alcohol and gambling machines again, three months after Premier Danielle Smith announced restrictions aimed at fighting back against U.S. tariffs. Service Alberta Minister Dale Nally said Friday that the move signals a 'renewed commitment to open and fair trade' with the United States. Smith said in March that the province would no longer buy U.S. alcohol and video lottery terminals, or sign contracts with American companies. Alberta's liquor stores are privately owned but must order stock through the provincial government. That came a day after U.S. President Donald Trump slapped heavy tariffs on Canadian goods and energy. Other premiers also announced bans on U.S. liquor along with other proposed penalties. Nally said in a statement that the decision to resume buying U.S. alcohol and gambling machines 'sets the stage for more constructive negotiations' ahead of a renewal of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement. The agreement, known as CUSMA, was negotiated during the first Trump administration and is up for a mandatory review in 2026. 'Prime Minister Mark Carney has made a clear effort to reset the relationship with the U.S. administration, and Alberta's government supports this approach,' Nally said. 'We are focused on highlighting Alberta's role as a responsible and collaborative trading partner and will continue working alongside other provinces to advocate for a tariff-free relationship.' The minister said Albertans are encouraged to continue supporting local producers, even as more U.S. options return to store shelves. In April, the province paused its policy around procurement from U.S. companies in what Nally called 'the spirit of diplomacy.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 6, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Alberta resumes buying U.S. alcohol, months after pause meant to fight tariffs
EDMONTON — Alberta is buying American alcohol and gambling machines again, three months after Premier Danielle Smith announced restrictions aimed at fighting back against U.S. tariffs. Service Alberta Minister Dale Nally says the move signals a "renewed commitment to open and fair trade" with the United States. Smith said in March that the province would no longer buy U.S. alcohol and video lottery terminals, or sign contracts with American companies. That came a day after U.S. President Donald Trump slapped heavy tariffs on Canadian goods and energy. Nally says the decision to resume buying U.S. alcohol and gambling machines "sets the stage for more constructive negotiations" ahead of a renewal of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement. The minister says Albertans are encouraged to continue supporting local producers, even as more U.S. options return to store shelves. Nally said in April that the province was pausing its policy around procurement from U.S. companies "in the spirit of diplomacy." He said since the province's retaliatory measures were first announced in early March, the Trump administration had put a hold on further tariffs. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 6, 2025. The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ukraine's drone strike on Russia spurs global military rethink, raises U.S. preparedness concerns
Ukraine's drone attack on Russia last weekend was a technological and intelligence game changer. It will reshape not only how the United States bolsters its military, but how the entire world does — allies and adversaries alike. While defense specialists examined the feat in the days since the attack and Ukraine celebrated its success, the question remains: How prepared is the U.S. to use and fend off this emerging tech in warfare? Not well enough, former Utah Rep. Chris Stewart told the Deseret News. Stewart spent 14 years as a pilot in the Air Force and served on the permanent Select Committee on Intelligence while he was in the House of Representatives. He argued that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's attack, which took more than a year and a half to plan, was 'brilliantly planned' and 'brilliantly executed.' It was a 'dramatic event' that will reshape military thinking globally, Stewart said. On June 1, more than 100 Ukrainian drones targeted military airfields and warplanes in Russia that held equipment used in the more than three-year war. Zelenskyy shared a thread online celebrating his military's success in the mission, nicknamed 'Spider Web.' The attack was unique because it demonstrated Ukraine's ability to conduct a successful mission without intelligence assistance, it struck deep into Russian territory, destroyed billions of dollars of Russian equipment and came at a very low cost to Ukraine. The attack consisted of 117 unmanned drones, each with a drone operator. Drones were smuggled into Russia and placed in wooden containers that had remote-controlled lids. The drones then 'took off to strike their targets,' which were at four different Russian airfields, Ukraine's Security Service said. Ukraine said 41 Russian aircraft were hit by their drones, dealing Russia a blow of an estimated $7 billion. Zelenskyy touted that one of the targeted locations was directly next to one of the FSB Russian security service offices and Russia had 'suffered significant losses.' Zelenskyy said Ukraine will continue to propose a 'full and unconditional ceasefire' and work toward peace with Russia, but its June 1 attack may have pushed Russia further away from the negotiating table. Stewart argued that the attack, while largely successful in its goal of targeting some of Russia's prized possessions, is also a 'destabilizing event.' 'It was an attack, direct attack on an asset that Vladimir Putin considers his highest priority and I worry a little bit about the implications of that,' he said, later adding, 'I'm not saying Zelenskyy shouldn't have done it, I'm just saying … one of the outcomes for that is it's going to make … the peace negotiations that are taking place much harder.' President Donald Trump — who was apparently not aware of Ukraine's attack ahead of time — spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. According to Trump, Putin said he would respond to the drone attack. It was a 'good conversation,' but not one that would lead to immediate peace, Trump said. Hours later, Russia struck the Ukrainian city of Pryluky, killing at least five people, including a 1-year-old child. On Friday, Russia launched one of its largest aerial attacks of the war, bombing six Ukrainian regions. The attack included 407 drones and 33 missiles. It killed four people, Ukraine said. As Ukraine balances protecting its front lines and cities, continuing its counteroffensive against Russia and seeking to strike a peace deal, the escalation raises questions about what the recent attack means for the United States and its adversaries. Stewart noted that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has been interesting to watch because, in some ways, they are fighting a World War I-style war through trench warfare, but the use of unmanned drones in the battlefield has escalated fighting to World War III-level combat. The drones used by Ukraine aren't 'sophisticated weapons' by any means, Stewart pointed out. They aren't much different than drones seen flying in the park on weekends. However, if they're deployed strategically, they can cause 'enormous damage,' as seen by Russia. 'Last Friday, could you have imagined what happened in Russia over the weekend? And the truth is is no one did. And that's just one example of, we don't know really how this is going to change and be implemented and we're probably not nearly as prepared as we should be,' Stewart said. He also highlighted how Russia and Ukraine have 'leapfrogged' one another throughout the war. If Russia develops a drone with a new capability, Ukraine will develop a superior one weeks later, and so on. The technology itself is rapidly evolving in the war, Stewart said. 'Going back three years, if you had talked about how will drones affect the war in Ukraine, everyone would have shrugged their shoulders and said, 'Well, I'm not sure,' or they would have said, 'Well, probably not a lot,'' he said. 'And the answer to that question is, it impacted it greatly.' During a briefing on Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Ukraine's drone attack 'absolutely does' raise questions about the United States' security. She pointed to Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' and the expansion of defense funding to bolster the U.S. military as it examines how to respond to the emergence of drone usage. 'The president has a full understanding, I can tell you because I've spoken to him about it, about the future of warfare and how drones are a big part of that, and I will not get ahead of our policy team, but I think you can expect to see some executive action on that front in the very near future,' she said. Evelyn Farkas, a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense, said she believes the United States doesn't have the capability to protect against swarms of drones, should an adversary launch an attack. It's something the Department of Defense would need to look at, both domestically and at its overseas bases, she said. But bolstering U.S. military operations would need to start with production. Most drones are being produced overseas, including by U.S. adversaries like China. 'Now that they've used them to strategic effect, it will be even more urgent for the United States to improve its drone capability and to invest in drones,' Farkas, who is the executive director of the McCain Institute, said. The attack over the weekend proved that while drone warfare is not entirely a new operational tactic, the strategy behind using them changed the game. Stewart argued the attack also proved there are two major issues facing the U.S. as it stands on the sidelines of the current war: drone defense and implementation plans need to be drafted, and the supply chain needs to be less dependent on China. China, Stewart noted, has also been successful in purchasing land near U.S. military installations globally. Commanders have likely spent the last several days reviewing how to protect assets after seeing Ukraine launch drones into Russian bases at a very close range, he said. 'They weren't really particularly worried about the aircraft sitting out on their tarmac, and it turned out they should have been, right?' he said of the Russian military, later adding, 'I think people are looking at that differently now than they were.' The U.S. military has said it must invest in drones, commonly called unmanned aircraft systems or UAS. Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll said in a post online that modernization is critical to U.S. national security. 'Investing in UAS isn't optional — it's essential for battlefield dominance, enhancing precision and protecting Soldiers,' he said. Air Force Gen. David Allvin highlighted the need for technological advancement and investment, pointing to Ukraine's attack. 'In today's environment not every asset must be exquisite/expensive. Look what Ukraine just did,' he said in a post online. 'We can't afford to walk by assets like this that generate lethal effects.' Hoover Institution fellow Jacquelyn Schneider has long argued that the U.S. needs to invest in low-cost technology to advance its military. In a 2023 op-ed, she expanded on her research and argued that the U.S. military has ended up in a paradox. It chased emerging technology that made weapons so expensive that upgrading them would be difficult. It left the Pentagon with a stockpile that was 'neither good enough nor large enough' for its plans, Schneider argued. 'The United States also underprioritized technology that would rein in the cost of logistics, maintenance, and replenishment, opting instead for high-tech weaponry patched together with fragile and outdated software,' she wrote. Schneider said the U.S. needs to 'urgently' prioritize technology that would cut warfare costs and admit it cannot replace all of its systems. High-cost technology should be complemented with cheaper options, she said. 'If the United States hopes to persevere against Russia in the short term and China in the long term, it must consider the economic impact of technology even as it pursues technological advantage,' Schneider wrote. Farkas agreed. The United States has an undeniable issue by having 'very expensive systems that are now vulnerable to foreign drones,' she said. War is a 'great accelerator,' Stewart said of technological advancements. It just depends on if the U.S. military will use it properly, he argued. 'The problem on the defense spending side is, we're just not spending the money we should. The bigger problem is, are we spending it right?' he questioned. 'It doesn't do us much good to buy $50 million Predator drones when we know now that a $500 plastic drone can do nearly the same thing.' Stewart said one of his largest concerns after Ukraine's attack is how the U.S. will respond. It's a pressing issue for the industry and the Pentagon as it grapples with rapidly evolving technology and the price tag of modern warfare. 'Will we spend it in the right way and are we keeping up with technology?' he asked, saying he hopes the administration is prompted to ask those questions after Ukraine's attack.
