White House Pushes Congress for Drone-Killing Powers, Ted Cruz Calls It a “Power Grab”

The Trump administration is pressuring Congress to grant sweeping new powers to shoot down drones at public events, critical infrastructure, and prisons – and one of the president’s staunchest allies is calling it an “extremely problematic” power grab.

I’ve been tracking counter-drone legislation for years, and this White House push represents the most aggressive expansion of domestic drone interdiction authority we’ve seen yet. The timing isn’t coincidental: with the 2026 World Cup nine months away and the 2028 Olympics on the horizon, security concerns are being leveraged to permanently reshape who can intercept aircraft in American airspace.

According to a Politico exclusive published November 26, 2025, draft legislation obtained by the outlet would give the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice “new authority to take counter-drone measures for large scale public gatherings or events, critical infrastructure or correctional facilities.”

The proposal would also expand counter-drone authority to state and local law enforcement.

Current Law vs. Proposed Expansion

Under existing law, federal agencies can only intervene against drone threats when specific high-risk facilities like government operations and power plants are deemed at risk. The White House wants to dramatically broaden that scope.

The administration is pushing to attach this measure to the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders are trying to finalize by early next week.

Ted Cruz’s Resistance

Here’s where this gets interesting. Sen. Ted Cruz, who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee with jurisdiction over aviation policy, views the proposal as federal overreach.

“Extremely problematic” is how a person granted anonymity described Cruz’s position to Politico, characterizing it as a “power grab that would give federal security officials too much leeway in determining how best to protect the public.”

Phoebe Keller, a spokesperson for Cruz on the Commerce Committee, told Politico:

“We are happy to work with the administration on this proposal and any suggestion to the contrary is simply untrue.”

But the diplomatic statement masks real tension. Just yesterday, we reported that Cruz’s Commerce Committee walked away from Sen. Rick Scott’s aggressive DJI ban proposal after staff engaged with it. Cruz has consistently positioned himself as skeptical of both federal surveillance expansion and knee-jerk drone restrictions.

The Administration’s Response

A White House official granted anonymity said the Office of Legislative Affairs has been working on this legislative language since September, circulating proposals among congressional offices. The administration has been working closely with Speaker Mike Johnson’s office and Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s office.

“This is an important issue we must address as we prepare for global events such as the World Cup and the Olympics, and we need to ensure proper authorities are in place to protect the American people,” said a House GOP leadership aide granted anonymity.

“It’s something that the admin feels is extremely important given particularly all of the events of the next year,” the White House official said. “Having a strong strong event infrastructure and drone counter-measures is very important.”

The Bigger Picture: $500M Already Committed

What Politico’s reporting doesn’t emphasize is that this legislative push comes on top of the $500 million counter-drone program we reported in October. That funding, the largest domestic counter-drone deployment in U.S. history, is already flowing to states through DHS.

The administration also announced earlier this month a parallel track: training and deputizing state and local police at the FBI National Counter UAS Training Center in Alabama. As we reported two weeks ago, the center just graduated its first class, and Andrew Giuliani, head of the World Cup Task Force, described this deputization approach as a “backup plan” if Congress doesn’t act.

So what’s the new legislation actually about? It’s not about funding – that’s already allocated. It’s about permanently expanding who has legal authority to intercept aircraft and under what circumstances.

DroneXL’s Take

I’ve watched this pattern play out repeatedly: security concerns – sometimes legitimate, sometimes hysteria-driven – get used to justify sweeping new surveillance and interdiction powers that never sunset.

We saw it after the New Jersey drone panic, where thousands of “drone” reports turned out to be commercial aircraft, medical helicopters, and literally the planet Venus. Federal investigations found the “three drones” that forced a medical helicopter to divert were actually commercial aircraft approaching Solberg Airport. Yet the panic drove temporary flight restrictions and accelerated counter-drone legislation.

Now we’re seeing the World Cup and Olympics weaponized to push through authorities that law enforcement has wanted for years. And let’s be clear: there are legitimate security concerns. Stadium drone incidents jumped from 67 in 2018 to 2,845 in 2023 according to NFL testimony before Congress. Prison contraband drops are real. Critical infrastructure overflights happen.

But here’s what drone pilots need to understand: once local police get counter-drone powers for the World Cup, those capabilities won’t disappear on July 20, 2026. “Critical infrastructure” keeps getting defined more broadly. Your local mall could become a no-fly zone enforced by city cops with jamming equipment.

The civil liberties implications are serious. We reported just last week that the FBI is seeking AI-powered surveillance drones with facial recognition capabilities. NYPD drone flights surged 3,200% in the first half of 2025 with minimal oversight. The same infrastructure being built to “protect” sporting events will be used for political surveillance, it already has been, with drones deployed over protests and footage used to arrest demonstrators.

Ted Cruz, whatever his motivations, is asking the right questions about federal overreach and accountability. We need thoughtful legislation with clear limits, training requirements, oversight mechanisms, and sunset provisions – not emergency powers rubber-stamped because the World Cup is coming.

What do you think? Is this necessary security or another surveillance expansion? Share your thoughts in the comments below.