Journalism Group Slams ‘Largest Drone Ban Ever’ as Attack on Press Freedom

The National Press Photographers Association has condemned the largest drone flight restriction ever imposed in the United States as an unconstitutional attack on aerial journalism, demanding the FAA and DHS explain why press freedom is being sacrificed in the name of security.

The legal challenge marks a critical escalation in the fight over whether federal agencies can ground journalists while flying their own surveillance drones overhead—a scenario press freedom advocates have warned about for years.

National Press Photographers Association Challenges Unprecedented Restriction

Mickey H. Osterreicher, NPPA general counsel, issued a scathing statement October 5 calling out the sweeping Temporary Flight Restriction over Chicago.

“This unprecedented flight restriction prevents journalists from using drones to document matters of clear public concern,” Osterreicher said. “When the government imposes such a broad and prolonged ban on newsgathering, it risks turning ‘security’ into a pretext for suppressing press freedom.”

The NPPA is demanding answers from both agencies.

“We are asking the FAA and DHS to identify who initiated this TFR, explain the specific security rationale for its scope, and expedite long-established waiver procedures for bona fide news organizations and journalists,” Osterreicher stated in the official statement.

The organization points to a troubling double standard.

“It’s troubling that while drones are restricted, crewed aircraft remain unaffected—contradicting the FAA’s own commitment to safely integrating drones into the national airspace as a more economical and lower-risk alternative,” Osterreicher said. “By selectively grounding drone journalism while allowing traditional aircraft, the agency undermines both its mission and the public’s right to be informed.”

Largest Drone Flight Ban Ever Imposed in United States

FAA NOTAM FDC 5/3678, issued at DHS request, prohibits all civilian drone operations within a 15-nautical-mile (17.3-mile) radius covering more than 935 square miles of Chicago. The restriction runs through October 12 and affects airspace from the surface to 400 feet above ground level.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, the TFR is believed to be the largest drone limitation of its kind ever enacted in the United States. The restriction coincides with Operation Midway Blitz, the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operation that has sparked protests and raised civil liberties concerns.

The timing is particularly significant. Federal agents are conducting raids using their own drones and helicopters while civilian drone pilots—including journalists—are completely grounded. Commercial drone operators must obtain special governmental interest waivers, but the process remains unclear for news organizations.

Ferguson 2014: A Troubling Precedent for Press Suppression

The Chicago TFR echoes a dark chapter in press freedom history. In 2014, Ferguson, Missouri police requested a no-fly zone during protests over Michael Brown’s killing. Audio recordings obtained by the Associated Press later revealed the true motivation: suppressing media coverage.

“They finally admitted it really was to keep the media out,” an FAA manager reportedly said of the St. Louis County Police Department’s request, according to the AP’s recordings. Another FAA official stated police “did not care if you ran commercial traffic through this TFR all day long. They didn’t want media in there.”

The ACLU noted that Ferguson police used the 37-square-mile airspace restriction as part of their broader effort to squelch press coverage while violating journalists’ rights on the ground. The White House later acknowledged the Ferguson TFR should not have restricted press access.

DroneXL’s Take

History is repeating itself, and this time the stakes are even higher. The Chicago TFR isn’t just larger than Ferguson’s—it represents a more sophisticated approach to controlling the narrative. Instead of crude ground-level press restrictions, federal agencies now use airspace control to prevent aerial documentation while conducting their own drone surveillance.

We’ve long supported legitimate law enforcement drone operations for search and rescue, disaster response, and officer safety. But when federal agencies monopolize airspace during controversial operations while grounding the press, we’re watching the emergence of a dangerous precedent. The Fifth Circuit’s recent ruling that drone operation isn’t “expressive conduct” under the First Amendment only makes this more troubling—it creates a legal framework where controlling airspace effectively controls visual journalism.

The NPPA is right to demand transparency. DHS claims a “credible threat” of drone attacks on officers, but provides no evidence. Meanwhile, professional Part 107 pilots who check NOTAMs religiously and would never interfere with law enforcement operations are treated the same as potential threats. The waiver process for journalists remains murky at best.

This isn’t about drone safety. It’s about who gets to document what happens in American cities when federal power is deployed.

“Transparency and access are essential to democracy,” Osterreicher concluded. “The public’s right to know should not be curtailed by unprecedented flight bans on drones used for newsgathering purposes.”

The Chicago TFR expires October 12, but the precedent it sets could last far longer. If federal agencies can ground press drones whenever operations become controversial, aerial journalism becomes a privilege granted by the government rather than a protected right.

What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments below.