- Updated: April 4, 2026
- 8 min read
FAA Drone Restrictions Threaten Press Freedom
Skip to main content AboutContact Press People Opportunities EFF’s 35th Anniversary IssuesFree Speech Privacy Creativity and Innovation Transparency International Security Our WorkDeeplinks Blog Press Releases Events Legal Cases Whitepapers Podcast Annual Reports Take ActionAction Center Electronic Frontier Alliance Volunteer ToolsPrivacy Badger Surveillance Self-Defense Certbot Atlas of Surveillance Cover Your Tracks Street Level Surveillance apkeep DonateDonate to EFF Giving Societies Shop Sponsorships Other Ways to Give Membership FAQ DonateDonate to EFF Shop Other Ways to Give Email updates on news, actions, and events in your area. Join EFF Lists Copyright (CC BY) Trademark Privacy Policy Thanks Electronic Frontier Foundation Donate The FAA’s “Temporary” Flight Restriction for Drones is a Blatant Attempt to Criminalize Filming ICE DEEPLINKS BLOG By Sophia CopeApril 3, 2026 The FAA’s “Temporary” Flight Restriction for Drones is a Blatant Attempt to Criminalize Filming ICE Share It Share on Mastodon Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Copy link 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, from flying drones within half a mile of any ICE or CBP vehicle.In January, EFF and media organizations including The New York Times and The Washington Post responded to this blatant infringement of the First Amendment by demanding that the FAA lift this flight restriction. Over two months later, we’re still waiting for the FAA to respond to our letter. The First Amendment guarantees the right to record law enforcement.As we have seen with the extrajudicial killings of George Floyd, Renée Good, and Alex Pretti, capturing law enforcement on camera can drive accountability and raise awareness of police misconduct. A 21-Month Long “Temporary” Flight Restriction? The FAA regularly issues temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) to prevent people from flying into designated airspace.TFRs are usually issued during natural disasters, or to protect major sporting events and government officials like the president, and in most cases last mere hours. Not so with the restriction numbered FDC 6/4375, which started on January 16, 2026. This TFR lasts for 21 months—until October 29, 2027—and covers the entire nation. It prevents any person from flying any unmanned aircraft (i.e., a drone) within 3000 feet, measured horizontally, of any of the “facilities and mobile assets,” including “ground vehicle convoys and their associated escorts,” of the Departments of Defense, Energy, Justice, and Homeland Security. Violators can be subject to criminal and civil penalties, and risk having their drones seized or destroyed.In practical terms, this TFR means that anyone flying their drone within a half mile of an ICE or CBP agent’s car (a DHS “mobile asset”) is liable to face criminal charges and have their drone shot down. The practical unfairness of this TFR is underscored by the fact that immigration agents often use unmarked rental cars, use cars without license plates, or switch the license plates of their cars to carry out their operations. Nor do they provide prior warning of those operations.The TFR is an Unconstitutional Infringement of Free Speech While the FAA asserts that the TFR is grounded in its lawful authority, the flight restriction not only violates multiple constitutional rights, but also the agency’s own regulations. First Amendment violation. As we highlighted in the letter, nearly every federal appeals court has recognized the First Amendment right of Americans to record law enforcement officers performing their official duties.By subjecting drone operators to criminal and civil penalties, along with the potential destruction or seizure of their drone, the TFR punishes—without the required justifications—lawful recording of law enforcement officers, including immigration agents. Fifth Amendment violation. The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to due process, which includes being given fair notice before being deprived of liberty or property by the government.Under the flight restriction, advanced notice isn’t even possible. As discussed above, drone operators can’t know whether they are within 3000 horizontal feet of unmarked DHS vehicles. Yet the TFR allows the government to capture or even shoot down a drone if it flies within the TFR radius, and to impose criminal and civil penalties on the operator. Violations of FAA regulations.In issuing a TFR, the FAA’s own regulations require the agency to “specify[] the hazard or condition requiring” the restriction. Furthermore, the FAA must provide accredited news representatives with a point of contact to obtain permission to fly drones within the restricted area. The FAA has satisfied neither of these requirements in issuing its nationwide ban on drones getting near government vehicles.EFF Demands Rescission of the TFR We don’t believe it’s a coincidence that the TFR was put in place in January 2026, at the height of the Minneapolis anti-ICE protests, shortly after the killing of Renée Good and shortly before the shooting of Alex Pretti. After both of those tragedies, civilian recordings played a vital role in contradicting the government’s false account of the events.By punishing civilians for recording federal law enforcement officers, the TFR helps to shield ICE and other immigration agents from scrutiny and accountability. It also discourages the exercise of a key First Amendment right. EFF has long advocated for the right to record the police, and exercising that right today is more important than ever. Finally, while recording law enforcement is protected by the First Amendment, be aware that officers may retaliate against you for exercising this right. Please refer to our guidance on safely recording law enforcement activities. Related Issues Free SpeechRight to Record Share It Share on Mastodon Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Copy link Related Updates Recently, a California Superior Court jury found that Meta and YouTube harmed a user through some of the features they offered. And a New Mexico jury concluded that Meta deceived young users into thinking its platforms were safe from predation.It’s clear that many people are frustrated by big tech. Governments around the world are adopting new laws and policies aimed at addressing online harms, including laws intended to curb cybercrime and disinformation, and ostensibly protect user safety. Framed as necessary responses to legitimate concerns, they are increasingly being used in ways that restrict fundamental rights.Sixty-six percent of internet users live where political or social sites are blocked, and 78% live in countries where people have been arrested for online posts. This is the second installment of a blog series reflecting on the global digital legacy of the 2011 Arab uprisings. The UK is moving forward with its efforts to ban social media for young people.Ahead of this week’s House of Lords debate on the topic, we’re getting you situated with a primer on what’s been happening and what it all means. A new generation of protesters, raised on social media and often fluent in the tools of digital dissent, has taken to the streets in recent months and years. This is the first installment of a blog series reflecting on the global digital legacy of the 2011 Arab uprisings.What’s at stake is whether “protecting children” becomes a legal pretext for embedding government control over the internet to enforce specific moral and religious judgments—judgments that deny marginalized people access to speech, community, history, and truth—into law. Women in tech deserve more and brighter spotlights. At EFF, we’ve had the honor of celebrating some of our heroes at our annual EFF Awards, including many women who are leading the digital rights community.In this blog, we recognize Carolina Botero (EFF Award Winner, 2024), Chelsea Manning (EFF Award. In honor of International Women’s Day, we asked five women at EFF about women in digital rights, freedom of expression, technology, and tech activism who have inspired us. They include Anna Politkovskaya, Cindy Cohn, Jane (the organization), Ebele Okobi, and Ada Lovelace. In a big win for protesters’ rights, the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit overturned a lower court’s dismissal of a challenge to sweeping warrants to search a protester’s devices and digital data and a nonprofit’s social media data.The case, Armendariz v. City of Colorado Springs,. EFF is calling on technology companies like Meta and Google to stand up for their users by resisting DHS lawless administrative subpoenas for user data.Share on MastodonShare on XShare on Facebook Related IssuesFree SpeechRight to Record Back to top Follow EFF: mastodon facebook instagram x Blue Sky youtube flicker linkedin tiktok threads Check out our 4-star rating on Charity Navigator.Contact General Legal Security Membership Press About Calendar Volunteer Victories History Internships Jobs Staff Diversity & Inclusion Issues Free Speech Privacy Creativity & Innovation Transparency International Security Updates Blog Press Releases Events Legal Cases Whitepapers EFFector Newsletter Press Press Contact Donate Join or Renew Membership Online One-Time Donation Online Giving Societies Corporate Giving and Sponsorship Shop Other Ways to Give Copyright (CC BY) Trademark Privacy Policy Thanks JavaScript license information