Mastodawn

The FAA’s flight restriction for drones is an attempt to criminalize filming ICE

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/faas-temporary-flight-restriction-drones-blatant-attempt-criminalize-filming-ice

The FAA’s “Temporary” Flight Restriction for Drones is a Blatant Attempt to Criminalize Filming ICE

Legal intern Raj Gambhir was the principal author of this post.The Trump administration has restricted the First Amendment right to record law enforcement by issuing an unprecedented nationwide flight restriction preventing private drone operators, including professional and citizen journalists,...

Electronic Frontier Foundation

I agree with the EFF here. Government operators must operate in the daylight.

jddecker 5d ago

How does this work if they are not clearly defined on a map? Usually TFRs are shown on drone maps so you know where you can fly.

If I am flying my drone and an unmarked ICE vehicle drives within half a mile am I in trouble?

Yes. You not knowing whether you are in trouble or not is a feature, not a bug.

ceejayoz 5d ago

> If I am flying my drone and an unmarked ICE vehicle drives within half a mile am I in trouble?

That depends on whether you support Dear Leader.

godelski 5d ago

It sure would be nice of them to do that!

I can't wait to see this tested in court. While IANAL the EFF sure has lawyers and their argument seems petty sound.

Really this just seems like a waste of government money. They can shoot down drones and arrest people but those people will get court cases and they'll win and the gov will (and has) have you pay out fines. I'm not a fan of paying people to harass others...

> I can't wait to see this tested in court.

Today, yes, but if the fascist cancer is around for too long, more and more judges will be its appointed tools.

Analemma_5d ago

I don’t think they really care about paying out fines, that would be a cost of doing business. The point is to make sure that footage like the Pretti execution can never happen again, because that’s what tanks their support. If they have to pay out a bunch of fines to get that assurance, so what? The fines are paid by our tax dollars anyway, it’s not like they’re actually harmed or deterred by them.

This administration is overstepping legal bound left and right. If they want you in trouble, you'll be in trouble. Appeals to law, even if successful, will take too long.

How exactly is anyone supposed to comply with this, given that neither the FAA nor ICE are telling anyone where ICE vehicles and operations are.

(The answer is obvious - it's impossible to comply with it.)

voakbasda 5d ago

This is not a rule designed to ensure compliance. It’s designed to punish anyone they choose.

Make no mistake, getting targeted by this will be severely punishing, even if the courts ultimately throw it out.

Aurornis 5d ago

Flying a drone within 1/2 mile of ICE vehicles, which may be unmarked, is illegal? You can be flying a drone and if an unmarked ICE vehicle drives close enough, without warning, you have now broken serious FAA laws? This isn’t the kind of restriction that gets passed when the people making the rules care about being fair or consistent. It’s a power grab.

idle_zealot 5d ago

This is par for the course for rules regarding law enforcement. A group of armed men bust down your door in the middle of the night without identifying themselves. They're aiming guns at you and your family. Are you allowed to fire on them with your legally owned firearm? The law says yes, but also that police are allowed to be those people knocking down the door and shoot you if you aim a gun at them. So if that happens, who is in the wrong? Courts have been dodging the question, but in practice the answer is that you're going to be killed and the police won't be liable. You can do everything right and law enforcement is allowed to arrest you, steal your shit, destroy your property, or kill you, and officially you're the criminal for perfectly normal and normally legal behavior.

>Courts have been dodging the question

It's not hard to find contradictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge_standoff#Trials_of_...

If by "courts" you mean appellate (precedent setting) courts, cases like these usually never get to that stage because cases like these are straightforward enough that juries can rule on them without lawyers getting into esoteric arguments.

Ruby Ridge standoff - Wikipedia

helterskelter 5d ago

I expect a court would rule against the government if they tried to enforce this against somebody unknowingly flying within a 1/2 mile of an unmarked ICE vehicle. I'd feel sorry for the poor soul that would have to fight it though.

jimbob45 5d ago

Pfffff the rules for flying drones as set by the FAA are already draconian as is and that’s before you begin to run afoul of city/state rules. They’re usually banned in residential areas to begin with (without permits) so you’re screwed even before this rule. Hope you kept VLOS the whole time too or none of the other rules matter.

youknownothing 5d ago

IANAL but mens rea is a serious consideration here. A prosecutor would have to prove that you have knowingly and wilfully committed the crime in order to be convicted, so unmarked cars are in practice out of scope.

I think the main implication is that you won't be able to use any drone recordings for legal action against ICE unless you can prove that you recorded from further than 3,000 feet (one hell of a camera) or that you did it "accidentally", e.g. I was just filming my friends and ICE agents suddenly busted out of an unmarked car that happened to be within the frame. Even then, you'd have to stop recording pretty soon because at that point they could argue that it becomes wilful recording.

smallmancontrov 5d ago

No, the point isn't just to stop legal action against ICE, it's also to go after anyone who posts drone footage that goes viral.

Party of free speech, btw.

youknownothing 5d ago

yeah, that too, good point.