Beyond the Hearing: What It Will Take to Secure U.S. Airspace Against Drone Threats
This week’s Congressional hearing on drone incursions made one thing clear—America’s skies are increasingly vulnerable—and our response remains fragmented, underpowered, and overdue.
From foreign intelligence gathering to the threat of weaponized aerial systems, unauthorized drone activity over U.S. military installations is no longer rare or hypothetical. While government officials cited 350 incursions over 100 bases in 2024, they also acknowledged that the true number is likely much higher and available only in classified settings. Based on Hidden Level’s own data, we believe that number may be significantly under reported.
But perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this crisis? We still lack a coordinated national strategy to detect, deter, and defeat low-altitude drone threats in U.S. airspace.
Fragmented Authority Is the Weakest Link
One of the most pressing themes in the hearing was the lack of clear operational authority. Despite involving multiple federal agencies—DoD, FAA, DOJ, DHS, and in many cases, local, tribal, and state law enforcement—there is no single entity empowered to lead the counter-UAS mission.
This jurisdictional fog has led to confusion about who can act—and when. For instance, base commanders have the authority to act against drones only under narrow circumstances (e.g., when hostile intent is evident). They cannot apprehend operators off base, even when drones are clearly surveilling sensitive infrastructure. That task falls to local law enforcement—who may lack tools, context, or even awareness of the threat.
Cross-Jurisdictional Success at Stewart ANGB
Most military installations today operate with outdated, siloed systems for detecting drone incursions—if they have any detection capabilities at all. At Stewart Air National Guard Base in New York, that changed in under 24 hours.
Facing a surge in airspace violations and a high-risk drone event near the flight path of inbound commercial traffic, Stewart activated Hidden Level’s Airspace Monitoring Service. Within a day, the base had real-time airspace visibility.
The result? A rogue drone was detected and the operator precisely geolocated. Law enforcement was automatically alerted and the operator was interdicted within seven minutes. This wasn’t just fast—it was transformational.
Covered vs. Uncovered: The Limits of 130i
Under current law, only designated covered facilities under Section 130i have authority to respond to certain drone threats. That excludes key locations like Luke AFB, where three-quarters of F-35 pilots are trained, simply because it’s classified as a training site—not an operational one.
And even when commanders have authority to act, they may lack legal clarity to detect.
“You can’t defeat what you can’t see.”
“That’s the fundamental issue... you can’t defeat what you can’t see.” — Gen. Gregory Guillot, Commander, U.S. Northern Command
This quote, delivered during a Congressional posture hearing, was echoed repeatedly in the recent C-UAS hearing. Without real-time situational awareness, commanders are left guessing: Is this drone just negligent? Or is it nefarious?
Rear Admiral Spedero repeatedly emphasized that deploying a layered sensor network is the critical first step—combining radar, EO/IR, and passive RF—to build the domain awareness needed for effective response. This requirement extends beyond military bases to include critical infrastructure, border regions, and forward-deployed areas—aligning with the broader vision of the Golden Dome national defense initiative.
Passive RF sensing is the foundation for that layer. It doesn’t require spectrum approval. It doesn’t reveal itself to adversaries. It’s scalable. And with long-range precision and accurate geolocation, it turns detection into decision advantage.
Privacy and Policy Are Colliding
In addition to the authority to act, base commanders and federal agencies need the authority to sense. Right now, many sensors can’t even be deployed—not because of budget constraints or technical limitations, but because of privacy laws, specifically Title 18 of the U.S. Code. That means critical installations are operating in the dark, with no legal way to detect aerial threats just beyond their perimeter.
In December 2024, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) blocked a bipartisan effort (S. 1631) to extend drone detection authority to local and state entities, citing Fourth Amendment privacy concerns. And he’s not wrong to raise the issue.
But here’s the good news—passive RF sensing technologies, like those developed by Hidden Level, are already Title 18 compliant.
· We do not demodulate signals
· We do not decode or intercept communications
· We offer a legally defensible, non-invasive approach to airspace awareness that’s scalable, reliable, and deployable now
This is critically important because, as the DoD provided in written testimony, “Systems that have proven effective in the Middle East are not appropriate for the homeland… due to collateral damage and legal restrictions.”
That reality elevates the importance of sensing infrastructure that meets both operational and legal standards.
Passive RF sensing is one of the few technologies that fits the bill. It works without spectrum approval. It doesn’t reveal itself to adversaries. It scales across bases, borders, and cities. And with long-range precision and accurate geolocation, it turns detection into decision advantage.
The Path Forward
The implication is clear—technology is advancing faster than policy. As Representative John McGuire (R-Va.) noted during the hearing, “We owe it to our military and our citizens to fix this. The United States provides better UAS protection to Saudi Arabia than we do to our own citizens.” That should never be true.
What’s needed now is resolve:
- Clarify and expand Section 130i to cover more military installations, including training areas.
- Codify interagency protocols that support real-time response across jurisdictions.
- Embrace lawful, passive sensing technologies that empower detection without creating new privacy risks.
- Break through bureaucratic paralysis before the next Tower 22 happens on U.S. soil.
America’s adversaries have already figured this out. They’re buying land next to bases. They’re flying covertly in restricted zones. The skies are already contested. The question is not whether we act, but whether we act fast enough.
Misson Objective
What we did
Value Delivered
Beyond the Hearing: What It Will Take to Secure U.S. Airspace Against Drone Threats
This week’s Congressional hearing on drone incursions made one thing clear—America’s skies are increasingly vulnerable—and our response remains fragmented, underpowered, and overdue.
From foreign intelligence gathering to the threat of weaponized aerial systems, unauthorized drone activity over U.S. military installations is no longer rare or hypothetical. While government officials cited 350 incursions over 100 bases in 2024, they also acknowledged that the true number is likely much higher and available only in classified settings. Based on Hidden Level’s own data, we believe that number may be significantly under reported.
But perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this crisis? We still lack a coordinated national strategy to detect, deter, and defeat low-altitude drone threats in U.S. airspace.
Fragmented Authority Is the Weakest Link
One of the most pressing themes in the hearing was the lack of clear operational authority. Despite involving multiple federal agencies—DoD, FAA, DOJ, DHS, and in many cases, local, tribal, and state law enforcement—there is no single entity empowered to lead the counter-UAS mission.
This jurisdictional fog has led to confusion about who can act—and when. For instance, base commanders have the authority to act against drones only under narrow circumstances (e.g., when hostile intent is evident). They cannot apprehend operators off base, even when drones are clearly surveilling sensitive infrastructure. That task falls to local law enforcement—who may lack tools, context, or even awareness of the threat.
Cross-Jurisdictional Success at Stewart ANGB
Most military installations today operate with outdated, siloed systems for detecting drone incursions—if they have any detection capabilities at all. At Stewart Air National Guard Base in New York, that changed in under 24 hours.
Facing a surge in airspace violations and a high-risk drone event near the flight path of inbound commercial traffic, Stewart activated Hidden Level’s Airspace Monitoring Service. Within a day, the base had real-time airspace visibility.
The result? A rogue drone was detected and the operator precisely geolocated. Law enforcement was automatically alerted and the operator was interdicted within seven minutes. This wasn’t just fast—it was transformational.
Covered vs. Uncovered: The Limits of 130i
Under current law, only designated covered facilities under Section 130i have authority to respond to certain drone threats. That excludes key locations like Luke AFB, where three-quarters of F-35 pilots are trained, simply because it’s classified as a training site—not an operational one.
And even when commanders have authority to act, they may lack legal clarity to detect.
“You can’t defeat what you can’t see.”
“That’s the fundamental issue... you can’t defeat what you can’t see.” — Gen. Gregory Guillot, Commander, U.S. Northern Command
This quote, delivered during a Congressional posture hearing, was echoed repeatedly in the recent C-UAS hearing. Without real-time situational awareness, commanders are left guessing: Is this drone just negligent? Or is it nefarious?
Rear Admiral Spedero repeatedly emphasized that deploying a layered sensor network is the critical first step—combining radar, EO/IR, and passive RF—to build the domain awareness needed for effective response. This requirement extends beyond military bases to include critical infrastructure, border regions, and forward-deployed areas—aligning with the broader vision of the Golden Dome national defense initiative.
Passive RF sensing is the foundation for that layer. It doesn’t require spectrum approval. It doesn’t reveal itself to adversaries. It’s scalable. And with long-range precision and accurate geolocation, it turns detection into decision advantage.
Privacy and Policy Are Colliding
In addition to the authority to act, base commanders and federal agencies need the authority to sense. Right now, many sensors can’t even be deployed—not because of budget constraints or technical limitations, but because of privacy laws, specifically Title 18 of the U.S. Code. That means critical installations are operating in the dark, with no legal way to detect aerial threats just beyond their perimeter.
In December 2024, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) blocked a bipartisan effort (S. 1631) to extend drone detection authority to local and state entities, citing Fourth Amendment privacy concerns. And he’s not wrong to raise the issue.
But here’s the good news—passive RF sensing technologies, like those developed by Hidden Level, are already Title 18 compliant.
· We do not demodulate signals
· We do not decode or intercept communications
· We offer a legally defensible, non-invasive approach to airspace awareness that’s scalable, reliable, and deployable now
This is critically important because, as the DoD provided in written testimony, “Systems that have proven effective in the Middle East are not appropriate for the homeland… due to collateral damage and legal restrictions.”
That reality elevates the importance of sensing infrastructure that meets both operational and legal standards.
Passive RF sensing is one of the few technologies that fits the bill. It works without spectrum approval. It doesn’t reveal itself to adversaries. It scales across bases, borders, and cities. And with long-range precision and accurate geolocation, it turns detection into decision advantage.
The Path Forward
The implication is clear—technology is advancing faster than policy. As Representative John McGuire (R-Va.) noted during the hearing, “We owe it to our military and our citizens to fix this. The United States provides better UAS protection to Saudi Arabia than we do to our own citizens.” That should never be true.
What’s needed now is resolve:
- Clarify and expand Section 130i to cover more military installations, including training areas.
- Codify interagency protocols that support real-time response across jurisdictions.
- Embrace lawful, passive sensing technologies that empower detection without creating new privacy risks.
- Break through bureaucratic paralysis before the next Tower 22 happens on U.S. soil.
America’s adversaries have already figured this out. They’re buying land next to bases. They’re flying covertly in restricted zones. The skies are already contested. The question is not whether we act, but whether we act fast enough.
