Army Secretary Dan Driscoll Calls Dronebuster Colorful Words, Tells Soldiers To Demand Better

If you’ve ever watched a highly-discussed piece of technology fall apart the second it comes to real-world field testing, the “Dronebuster” from DZYNE may feel all too familiar.

During a town hall at Fort Drum, U.S. Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll verbally ridiculed a system known as the “Dronebuster”, a handheld counter-drone jammer that troops have been using for years. His verdict, based on his own experience, was blunt: it’s “f***ing terrible,” and “it’s a joke.”

Driscoll told soldiers that if they agree the tool is bad, they need to say so out loud, and they should be demanding better from leadership because they’re the ones that will have to trust the equipment with their lives.

The Context of What Secretary Driscoll Said

Driscoll’s comments came up in response to a soldier describing a trip to the southern border where the Dronebuster was basically the only counter-UAS option on hand.

Secretary Driscoll called the system a “trigger word” for him, then doubled down on the criticism and pivoted to something bigger: performance theater doesn’t win fights, equipment has to work, and troops should push back when it doesn’t.

Hearing that from the Army’s top civilian isn’t overblown at all – if he’s willing to put his reputation on the line just to speak out against a piece of equipment, I’d bet it’s worth taking a closer look at.

What the Heck is a “Dronebuster”?

The Dronebuster is basically a jammer in a rifle-like form factor, meant to disrupt a drone’s control link, and in some cases its navigation.

War Department imagery shows soldiers patrolling the Rio Grande near Eagle Pass, Texas with a Dronebuster in June 2025 as part of Joint Task Force Southern Border operations.

So the situation isn’t “nobody has counter-drone gear”- It’s that a lot of troops are still stuck with narrow, handheld options that may not be up-to-par with current UAS technology.

DZYNE Responds: “He’s Talking About the Old Ones-“

DZYNE Technologies is the company behind Dronebusters. DZYNE officially responded to Driscoll’s flaming critique of their Dronebuster systems.

The company claimed that Driscoll was most likely referring to the early-generation systems which were requested back in 2016, and argued that those models were never designed for today’s faster, more capable, and more numerous drone threats.

That’s a fair point on paper. The drone threat has changed massively, especially with the Ukraine war accelerating what works and what doesn’t. Driscoll said as much, arguing Ukraine has sped up development and exposed how slow Pentagon decision-making can be.

The bigger, more pressing issue still remains: the drone threat has changed massively over the last ten years. With the war in Ukraine progressing UAS technology at an advanced rate, Driscoll himself even stated that the advanced development has exposed just how slow the Pentagon’s decision-making can be.

Ultimately, if soldiers are deploying today with gear they don’t trust, “we have an improvement plan” is not the same as “you can trust this equipment with your life”.

DroneXL’s Take

It is genuinely good to see senior leadership calling out bad equipment before it makes it to the battlefield. Troops should not have to pretend a system works just because it showed up on a hand receipt. That part of Driscoll’s message is hard to argue with, but the way it was delivered matters.

When the Army’s top civilian leader is dropping profanity, and ridiculing a in a public setting, it reads as unprofessional. If the Dronebuster is not meeting the threat, the answer cannot be “it’s terrible” and move on. The answer has to be, “Here’s what replaces it, here’s how we bridge the gap, and here’s the timeline.”

That’s especially important right now, because Washington has already squeezed the drone supply chain in a way the U.S. industrial base is not fully positioned to absorb. In late December 2025, the FCC added foreign-made drones and “UAS critical components” to its Covered List, a move that effectively blocks new FCC equipment authorizations and can shut down import and sale of new models and parts.

The FCC has since issued temporary exemptions for certain drones and components after DoD input, which is a pretty direct admission that the blanket approach created a real-world availability problem.

Uncrewed systems are still the future, not just for warfare, but for transportation, utility inspections, cinematography, and a long list of civilian work. That’s exactly why leadership needs to lead with solutions.

Driscoll can be right about the problem and still be wrong about the approach. If the goal is to protect soldiers today, the message has to be: demand better, and we’ll do better.

Last update on 2026-01-27 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API