When DHS closed 935 square miles of Chicago’s airspace to civilian drones during immigration raids last October, press freedom organizations called it a First Amendment crisis. NOTAM FDC 6/4375 is the same thing, but permanent and nationwide. Two of the country’s most prominent press freedom organizations are now saying so publicly, as Quill Magazine reports.

The National Press Photographers Association and the Freedom of the Press Foundation have both issued statements warning that these mobile no-fly zones are a direct threat to aerial journalism. When we first covered FDC 6/4375 on January 23, the focus was on the operational impossibility of complying with invisible, moving restrictions. The constitutional problem is worse. These restrictions make it illegal to fly a drone anywhere near ICE or CBP operations, which is exactly the kind of activity the public has the most urgent need to document from the air.

The Development: The NPPA and the Freedom of the Press Foundation are warning that FAA NOTAM FDC 6/4375 is designed to prevent drone-based documentation of federal law enforcement operations, and that it is a serious First Amendment problem.
The “So What?”: Just like the Chicago TFR that grounded all civilian drones during ICE raids last October, this NOTAM blocks aerial journalism of immigration enforcement, but it goes further by also restricting crewed aircraft, has no geographic boundaries, and has no end date.
The Context: These concerns come as federal agents in Minneapolis have fatally shot two U.S. citizens during Operation Metro Surge, intensifying the debate over whether the public can independently document federal enforcement actions from the air.

FDC 6/4375 creates restrictions that go far beyond a standard TFR

NOTAM FDC 6/4375, issued January 16, 2026, prohibits all drone flights within 3,000 feet laterally and 1,000 feet vertically above mobile assets belonging to the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and Department of Homeland Security, including ground vehicle convoys and their associated escorts. Unlike a typical Temporary Flight Restriction, the NOTAM has no geographic boundaries and no start or end date.

The FAA routinely posts TFRs to protect airspace around specific events. The Super Bowl LX restrictions we covered last month, for example, defined clear boundaries around Levi’s Stadium and downtown San Francisco with specific dates and times. FDC 6/4375 does none of this.

The airspace it restricts is whatever airspace federal vehicles happen to be passing through at any given moment. That includes unmarked ICE and CBP vehicles. If a convoy of federal agents drives beneath your drone during a legitimate Part 107 job, you are in technical violation of national defense airspace.

Penalties include criminal prosecution, civil actions, revocation of your remote pilot certificate, and “mitigation,” the bureaucratic word for having your drone seized, disabled, or destroyed. As we explained in our coverage of NOTAM 3-6405 for Navy vessels last year, these mobile national defense airspace restrictions carry the same weight as the restricted zones around Washington, D.C., Disney parks, and Kennedy Space Center.

NPPA warns mobile no-fly zones threaten aerial journalism

Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel of the National Press Photographers Association, told Quill Magazine that NOTAM FDC 6/4375 is an even greater threat to press freedom than the Chicago TFR that the NPPA condemned in October 2025 as the largest drone ban ever imposed in the United States.

Osterreicher called the restrictions a “sweeping extension of no-fly space” that “raises serious concerns for journalists and news organizations that depend on aerial footage to report on matters of public concern.”

One detail that separates this NOTAM from the Chicago situation: the 1,000-foot vertical limit does not only affect drones.

Osterreicher pointed out that it “applies to all unmanned aircraft in proximity to DHS mobile assets, but would similarly affect lower-altitude operations by journalists in crewed aircraft if those aircraft are tracking or documenting the same events in shared airspace.”

That distinction matters. When DHS closed Chicago’s airspace during Operation Midway Blitz, the TFR only affected drones below 400 feet AGL. News helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft could still fly. NOTAM FDC 6/4375 potentially restricts crewed aircraft as well, closing a workaround that news organizations relied on in Chicago.

Osterreicher demanded that the FAA establish “clear guidance or mechanisms for accredited media to secure timely waivers” so journalists can continue documenting events of public concern. Without that process, he warned, “journalists and independent documentarians may be unable to safely document enforcement actions and public demonstrations in real time.”

Freedom of the Press Foundation calls restrictions “totally mind-boggling”

Adam Rose, deputy director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation and a certified drone pilot himself, described NOTAM FDC 6/4375 as “totally mind-boggling, totally vague and totally problematic” in an interview with Quill Magazine.

Rose pointed to the fundamental constitutional problem.

“It’s been clearly established by the vast majority of circuit courts of appeal in the federal system that you have a constitutional First Amendment right to document public officials in public by filming,” he said. “And sometimes it’s very hard to get perspective on that from the ground.”

The unmarked vehicle problem is the practical issue Rose focused on. DHS mobile assets in the field are unmarked vehicles. ICE and CBP agents drive unmarked cars. A drone operator flying a legitimate mapping or inspection job has no way to know whether the vehicles below are federal law enforcement or regular traffic.

“So, it’s completely confusing to a drone operator if they might happen to be flying near unmarked vehicles and DHS agents, whether it’s ICE or Border Patrol or anyone else, who might interpret that as a threat,” Rose told Quill Magazine.

The shoot-down authority is what concerns Rose most. The NOTAM allows federal agents to “mitigate” drones they consider a credible threat. “If they’re shooting things out of the air, it would be extraordinarily dangerous for everyone on the ground,” he said.

Rose acknowledged that some restrictions on aerial operations near federal agents are reasonable, but argued the current NOTAM is far too broad. “If they have a legitimate safety concern and can articulate that in a clear way, then the FAA can put out NOTAMs that are properly tailored,” he said, referencing the legal standard of reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions on First Amendment activity.

Minneapolis shootings raise the stakes for drone journalism

Operation Metro Surge, described by DHS as the largest immigration enforcement operation in American history, has produced three shootings by federal agents in Minneapolis during January 2026 alone, killing two U.S. citizens and wounding a third, making independent aerial documentation of federal enforcement actions an immediate public interest question rather than a theoretical concern.

On January 7, ICE agent Jonathan Ross fatally shot Renee Good, a 37-year-old American woman, while she was in her vehicle. Federal officials initially claimed self-defense, but bystander video complicated that account. On January 14, Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis was shot in the leg by an ICE agent. On January 24, CBP agents fatally shot Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse at a VA hospital, during a protest. Video appears to show Pretti with his phone in one hand and his other hand raised when he was shot.

In both fatal shootings, bystander video captured from the ground contradicted the administration’s initial account of events. Aerial footage from an independent drone could have provided an even clearer record. That is exactly the kind of documentation that NOTAM FDC 6/4375 now restricts.

As Osterreicher noted in his statement, this is “particularly pressing at a moment when federal immigration operations and local responses in Minneapolis and other communities continue to draw intense public scrutiny.”

A federal judge has found that ICE violated at least 96 court orders in Minnesota since January 1, 2026. The state government, city governments, and multiple civil liberties organizations have filed lawsuits. Thousands have protested in subzero temperatures. The Justice Department has opened a federal civil rights investigation into the Pretti shooting.

Independent aerial documentation of these events is a matter of public interest. The NOTAM makes it illegal.

Ferguson to Chicago to FDC 6/4375: the pattern keeps escalating

The use of airspace restrictions to prevent press coverage of controversial federal operations is not new, but each iteration has expanded in scope and permanence. DroneXL has been tracking this pattern for years, and FDC 6/4375 is the most extreme version yet.

In 2014, Ferguson, Missouri police requested a no-fly zone during protests over the killing of Michael Brown. Audio recordings later obtained by the Associated Press revealed the real reason. “They finally admitted it really was to keep the media out,” an FAA manager said. Another official stated that police “did not care if you ran commercial traffic through this TFR all day long. They didn’t want media in there.” The White House later acknowledged the Ferguson TFR should not have restricted press access.

In October 2025, DHS imposed a TFR covering 935 square miles of Chicago during Operation Midway Blitz. It was the largest civilian drone ban in U.S. history. Federal agents flew their own drones and helicopters for surveillance while every civilian drone operator, including journalists, was grounded. That TFR lasted through October 12 and had defined geographic limits.

FDC 6/4375, issued in January 2026, goes further. No geographic limits. No end date. Covers crewed aircraft at lower altitudes, not just drones. And unlike Ferguson’s 37-square-mile zone or Chicago’s 935-square-mile zone, this NOTAM creates a restriction that moves with every federal vehicle in the country.

The trajectory is clear. Fixed zone, limited duration in Ferguson. Massive fixed zone, weeks-long duration in Chicago. Unlimited moving zones, indefinite duration nationwide in FDC 6/4375.

The two-tier airspace system keeps expanding

NOTAM FDC 6/4375 is part of a broader shift in which the federal government simultaneously expands its own aerial surveillance capabilities, including military-grade Predator drones and newly purchased Skydio X10D platforms for ICE, while restricting civilian and journalist access to the same airspace through increasingly broad no-fly zones.

As we detailed in our coverage of ICE’s $85 billion surveillance apparatus published yesterday, ICE signed a $514,000 contract last fall for new drones, including the Skydio X10D. The timeline we laid out in that article tells the story. In June 2025, CBP flew MQ-9 Predators over Los Angeles protests, as we reported in November. In October, DHS grounded all civilian drones in Chicago while flying its own surveillance aircraft. In November, the FBI announced it was seeking AI-powered surveillance drones with facial recognition. In December, Border Patrol expanded its small drone fleet to roughly 500 aircraft. In January 2026, the FAA created roving no-fly zones around every DHS operation in the country.

Federal drones go up. Civilian drones come down. Press drones stay grounded.

The constitutional problem here has been developing across multiple fronts. News organizations formally challenged the FAA’s proposed Part 108 rules in October, warning that the regulations would effectively ban BVLOS journalism in major cities. The News Media Coalition pointed out that package delivery gets 100 drones, agriculture gets 25, but breaking news in dense urban areas where journalism matters most would be banned. The proposed rules would also ban BVLOS operations under Part 107 entirely, eliminating the waiver pathway that journalists currently use.

In Texas, the Fifth Circuit’s 2023 reversal of a ruling protecting drone journalism already created a chilling effect. Photojournalist Billy Calzada testified that a police officer told him he would be violating the law if he published drone images of an apartment fire. Newspapers across Texas stopped drone operations out of fear of prosecution.

Temporary no-fly zones during controversial operations. Permanent regulations that ban urban drone journalism. Court rulings that say drone operation is not protected speech. Mobile no-fly zones with no boundaries and no end date. Each piece narrows the space for aerial journalism, and they are all moving in the same direction.

DroneXL’s Take

I’ve been covering airspace restrictions and press freedom for DroneXL since the Ferguson fallout, and NOTAM FDC 6/4375 is the most concerning restriction I’ve seen. Not because of what it does today, but because of what it normalizes.

Ferguson was crude. Police called the FAA and asked for a no-fly zone to keep media out, and they got caught on tape admitting it. Chicago was more sophisticated. DHS requested a massive TFR, cited vague “credible threats” without evidence, and grounded the press for weeks while flying its own surveillance overhead. FDC 6/4375 is the final evolution: a permanent, borderless restriction that makes aerial journalism near any federal enforcement operation illegal by default.

The Minneapolis shootings prove exactly why independent aerial documentation matters. In both fatal incidents, ground-level bystander video contradicted the government’s initial account. Imagine what a drone at 200 feet could have captured. Now consider that FDC 6/4375 makes that flight a federal crime, while ICE operates its own Skydio X10D drones and CBP flies MQ-9 Predators over the same city. That is the point. The government gets eyes in the sky. The public does not.

The Chicago TFR was the trial run. DHS closed 935 square miles of airspace, grounded the press, and flew its own surveillance drones overhead. The NPPA called it the largest drone ban in U.S. history and an unconstitutional attack on aerial journalism. FDC 6/4375 takes that same playbook and makes it permanent, borderless, and nationwide. If you can’t fly a drone near any ICE vehicle, and you don’t know which vehicles are ICE vehicles, you can’t fly a drone to document ICE operations. Period.

Adam Rose is correct that the First Amendment right to document public officials in public is well-established by federal courts. Mickey Osterreicher is correct that journalists need a clear, timely waiver process. Both are asking for the minimum: transparency and a mechanism for the press to do its job.

Here’s my prediction: the FAA will rework FDC 6/4375 in the next 90 days, likely narrowing the lateral distance and adding a formal process for government-interest waivers. But the reworked version will still lack a press waiver pathway unless the NPPA and Freedom of the Press Foundation keep the pressure on. The underlying authority for mobile no-fly zones around federal operations will become a permanent feature of American airspace management within 12 months, codified either through regulation or through the expanded counter-drone powers in the FY2026 NDAA.

If you’re a Part 107 pilot who also works in journalism, real estate, construction, or any field that puts your drone over streets where federal vehicles might pass, this NOTAM affects you directly. Contact the NPPA. File a comment with the FAA. And check your NOTAMs, because the restricted airspace is already moving.

Editorial Note: This article was researched and drafted with the assistance of AI to ensure technical accuracy and archive retrieval. All insights, industry analysis, and perspectives were provided exclusively by Haye Kesteloo and our other DroneXL authors, editors, and YouTube partners to ensure the “Human-First” perspective our readers expect.