SHIELD U Act Gives Local Police Authority to Jam, Seize, or Destroy Drones Near Airports and State Property

The SHIELD U Act, or the Stopping Harmful Incidents to Enforce Lawful Drone Use Act, is essentially a massive expansion of counter-drone power for local and federal authorities. The core of this bill is simple: it gives the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), state and local police, and airport police the explicit authority to detect, track, disrupt, seize, or even destroy unauthorized drones—or Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)—that they reasonably believe pose a threat near commercial airports or government property. This is a big deal because it legally clears the way for law enforcement to use technology, like signal jamming gear, that has historically been illegal for almost everyone to operate under the Communications Act. They’re carving out a major exception here.

The New Rules of the Airspace

For anyone who flies a drone for work or fun, this bill changes the risk profile significantly. The authority granted to police covers what the bill calls “Counter-UAS activities,” which includes accessing a drone’s communications, disrupting its control (spoofing or jamming), or physically disabling it. This can happen if officials have a “reasonable belief” that the drone could cause physical harm, death, or major financial damage to airport or government property. While the bill mandates consultation with the FCC and the NTIA before police can use non-kinetic equipment (like jammers) in their standard procedures, the fact remains that local police and airport security now have the power to interfere with, or even take down, a drone based on a judgment call. This means a legally operating commercial drone flying near an airport for a construction survey could be subject to intervention if it’s deemed a threat, even if the operator is following all FAA rules.

Airport Security Gets a Major Upgrade

For commercial service airports, this legislation is a game-changer. Every airport director has two years to assemble a task force and create a detailed “tactical response plan” to deal with drone threats. This plan has to define threat levels, assign response roles to everyone from the FAA to airlines, and ensure that any use of electronic countermeasures is “narrowly tailored” and temporary. Crucially, the bill also expands the definition of “airport development” under the federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP). What this means for taxpayers and travelers is that federal funding can now be used to buy the expensive counter-drone equipment—like radar systems and jammers—needed for these new security measures. This is a direct shift of costs and authority to formalize what was previously a gray area in airport security.

Jamming is Now Legal (For Them)

Section 7 is where the real legal muscle of this bill lies. It creates a specific statutory exception, overriding existing federal law, to allow authorized law enforcement and airport security personnel to use “covered equipment”—which includes drone jamming technology. This is a huge concentration of power. While the bill requires consultation with the FCC and the NTIA to coordinate the use of this spectrum-disrupting gear, the reality is that when a jammer is activated, it can potentially interfere with other signals in the area, impacting everything from GPS to Wi-Fi. The bill attempts to mitigate this by requiring police to notify the FCC/NTIA quickly when they use the gear, but for the average person, it means that enhanced security measures could occasionally lead to localized signal disruption, especially near airports.

Who’s In Charge When a Drone Threatens?

To manage these new authorities, the bill sets up two key coordination requirements. First, the FAA must help designate airspace for states and private companies to test out new counter-drone technology. Second, the FAA has one year to set up a temporary notification system where local police dealing with an active drone threat can instantly alert the FAA. The FAA then has to issue immediate warnings to all pilots, both manned and unmanned, in the area. This is a necessary step to prevent a collision between a police helicopter and a commercial jet, but it shows how complex and fast-moving the response to a drone threat will become, requiring perfect coordination across numerous agencies. Importantly, the bill also makes clear that none of this takes away a state’s traditional police power to act immediately in an emergency, ensuring that local authorities can still move fast when public health or safety is on the line.