General Summary of the Bill

The bill titled "Disabling Enemy Flight Entry and Neutralizing Suspect Equipment Act," also known as the "DEFENSE Act," was introduced in the 119th Congress. It authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General to deputize state or local law enforcement officers. These deputized officers will have the authority to manage drone-related safety at large public events or areas with specific temporary flight restrictions. The idea is to enhance security where there are flight restrictions, such as during critical public gatherings or events. The bill also outlines specific training requirements for officers and specifies oversight and equipment regulations.

Significant Issues

Several issues have been identified regarding the provisions of the bill:

1. Selection Criteria for Deputized Officers: The bill does not outline clear criteria for the selection of state or local law enforcement officers who may be deputized. This lack of guidance could lead to inconsistency or bias in how officers are selected.

2. Defining 'Eligible Large Public Gathering': There is no specific definition of what constitutes an "eligible large public gathering," leading to potential ambiguity and differing interpretations in practical applications.

3. Training Process Details: The bill requires officers to complete specific training but does not detail the training process. This omission could result in inconsistent training standards across departments.

4. Authorized Equipment Specification: It lacks clear definitions for "authorized equipment" and the criteria for including equipment on the authorized list. This vagueness could allow for arbitrary decision-making in equipment usage.

5. Lack of Penalties for Misuse: There is no outlined penalty or consequence for any misuse of authority by deputized officers, which risks potential abuse without ensuring accountability.

6. Insufficient Oversight Procedures: While oversight is mentioned, the bill does not detail specific procedures for such oversight, which might lead to inadequate monitoring.

7. Coordination Among Agencies: The responsibilities for coordination among the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the Federal Aviation Administration, and other agencies are not clearly defined, potentially leading to jurisdictional disputes.

Potential Impact on the Public and Stakeholders

For the general public, the bill aims to increase safety at large gatherings and critical events by managing drone activities, thereby potentially reducing security threats. However, the effectiveness of these measures will depend greatly on the clear implementation of the bill's provisions.

For specific stakeholders:

• Law Enforcement: Local law enforcement agencies could gain additional responsibilities, which might require more resources and training. Without clear guidelines, this could lead to variability in the execution of responsibilities, potentially affecting local law enforcement agencies’ operational efficiency.

• Drone Operators and Manufacturers: There could be implications regarding the types of drones and equipment considered acceptable near restricted areas. Operators and manufacturers might need to align more closely with regulations, and unclear equipment criteria could lead to confusion.

• Federal Agencies: The bill places an expectation on federal agencies to work collaboratively, requiring effective communication and partnership. Jurisdictional ambiguities or lack of clear roles might hinder streamlined operations and efficiency.

In summary, while the bill intends to strengthen security at sensitive events, several unaddressed issues could affect its successful execution. Clearer definitions, guidelines, and accountability measures are necessary to ensure that the bill's goals are met effectively and equitably across stakeholders.