老熟女午夜福利

On January 16 the Trump FAA issued a notice containing a to 鈥渋n proximity to select locations and mobile assets nationwide鈥� including DHS 鈥済round vehicle convoys and their associated escorts.鈥�

The ban would seem to cover airspace over ground vehicles engaged in the undisciplined, lawless, and violent deportation drive we鈥檙e seeing in Minneapolis and other US. cities. Or at least 鈥渃onvoys鈥� of participating vehicles and their 鈥渆scorts,鈥� whatever those undefined terms are supposed to mean. The order also covers 鈥減ersonnel鈥� where drones are 鈥渄eemed to pose a credible safety or security threat.鈥� It was announced via a 鈥淣otice to Airmen鈥� (NOTAM) 鈥� statements issued by the agency to inform pilots about various airspace closures (known as Temporary Flight Restrictions, or TFRs) such as near sporting events.

A big question is how drone operators are supposed to comply with this order. Nobody seems to believe that the FAA is going to post advance notice of ICE and Border Patrol officers鈥� operations and movements (though that would be very convenient for protesters in Minnesota and elsewhere). As one drone outlet ,

Unlike traditional Temporary Flight Restrictions, the NOTAM does not provide geographic coordinates, activation times, or public notification when the restriction is in effect near a specific location. Instead, the restricted airspace moves with DHS assets, meaning the no-fly zone can appear wherever ICE or other DHS units operate.

This ridiculous order has created puzzlement and consternation within the US. drone community. It seems to warn that anyone flying a drone anywhere in the country would be in violation if an ICE or Border Patrol 鈥渃onvoy鈥� decides to drive beneath them. Then they 鈥渕ay face,鈥� as the notice states, criminal charges for 鈥溾�� including jail time and/or a $10,000 fine, as well as destruction or seizure of their drone. Such a 鈥渄rive-under鈥� is actually quite likely in places where thousands of immigration agents are rampaging through neighborhoods such as Minneapolis-St. Paul.

With this notice the government is essentially purporting to give immigration agents plenary authority to order virtually any drone out of the sky that they don鈥檛 like, and potentially to pursue retaliatory enforcement actions against pilots. Oregon Department of Aviation Director Kenji Sugahara asked the FAA for clarification about this requirement and received saying in part:

At any time during [a drone] operation, if the remote pilot/operator is approached by a federal agent and advised they are operating within a TFR, then the remote pilot/operator should cease operation.

Normally requests for TFRs are vetted by the FAA and published for the world to see. The Trump Administration is now giving immigration and other DHS officials the power to conjure a flight restriction on a moment鈥檚 notice. Let鈥檚 remember too that DHS is comprised of many sub-agencies besides ICE and CBP, ranging from FEMA to the Secret Service to the TSA to various other, more obscure, agencies. Previous FAA 鈥淣ational Security鈥� NOTAMs pertained only to the Defense and Energy Departments and did not include DHS.

This assertion of power is part 鈥� though a drastic expansion 鈥� of a trend that we鈥檝e seen of law enforcement, and lately, immigration enforcement officers in particular, trying to stop the media and general public from recording their activities with drones. I discussed that issue and its history with regard to the deportation operations in Chicago in October. Given that history, as well as the deportation agencies鈥� routine targeting of people for First Amendment-protected photography, it鈥檚 entirely predictable how they will use this blank-check power: to go after drones they don鈥檛 like because they are being operated by media outlets or others seeking to document immigration operations.

As we pointed out regarding the October Chicago ban, and as drone expert Dawn Zoldi with regards to this new order, it would be a violation of the Constitution for officials to ban drone photography while permitting other drone operations such as deliveries, infrastructure inspections, or mapping. As Zoldi points out, in addition to inviting selective enforcement, the uncertainty this rule creates introduces significant chilling effects against drone journalism, as many will hesitate to risk punishment by putting their drones in the air at all, especially in cities that are swarming with federal agents.

We鈥檝e been fighting to stop this
This stunning power grab follows several years of efforts by US security and law enforcement agencies to expand their power over drone operators. In 2023-24, I represented the ACLU as the lone representative of civil liberties groups on an FAA advisory committee in which the agency sought stakeholder (mostly industry and law enforcement) views on how to counter the (very real) security threats that drones can pose. The ACLU鈥檚 primary concern was that, as we said in the , 鈥渟ecurity imperatives be properly balanced against the鈥� civil liberties of the public, and鈥� that the agency be mindful that 鈥榮ecurity鈥� has been and likely will again be used to try to block legal photography.鈥� We supported a recommendation for 鈥渃lear and regular processes by which rules prohibiting drones from flying in certain spaces can be enforced.鈥� And we warned that the counter-drone authorities contemplated by the advisory report were too broad, and that 鈥淲e don鈥檛 want law enforcement officers to end up with what amounts to a plenary power to take down any drone they wish.鈥�

The current order creates a process that is anything but 鈥渃lear and regular,鈥� seems highly likely to expand the misuse of security rationales to block legal drone photography, and does in fact create a sweeping power for DHS officials to take down nearly any drone they like.

On Capitol Hill, we and allies made warnings in opposing counter-drone that was passed in 2019, and again when the Biden administration in 2022 a that represented essentially a security- wish-list of counter-drone authorities unbalanced by civil liberties protections. To take just one example, it affirmatively applied to drones the American policing profession鈥檚 and of civil asset , in which police people鈥檚 belongings without proof of wrongdoing, giving law enforcement agencies a 鈥減rofit motive鈥� to engage in unjustified over-enforcement.

We and allied groups that 鈥渢his proposed text would give the authorities broad latitude to engage in鈥� abusive drone take-downs to stop photography by reporters 鈥渨hile providing no means of challenge or redress.鈥� Powerful members of Congress also objected to the proposal, and it was held up for several years 鈥� until December 2025, when the Trump Administration pushed through broad language echoing the Biden proposal by attaching it to a must-pass Defense Department funding measure.

Now we see it didn鈥檛 take long for the Trump Administration and its FAA to assert exactly the sweeping powers we鈥檝e been concerned about. Pending further information it鈥檚 unclear how much of this seemingly impossible-to-comply-with order will survive court challenge, but one thing we can count on is that government agencies 鈥� especially during this administration 鈥� will continue to seek control of the skies to block drone photography of their behavior.