Congress buried a significant change in the SAFER Skies Act that most drone operators haven't noticed yet.
If you use a drone to facilitate any felony offense, your potential prison sentence just doubled—or increased by five years, depending on how the underlying charge is structured.
This isn't hypothetical. The provision is law. And it applies whether you're flying a $300 DJI Mini or a $30,000 enterprise platform.
Here's what changed, who's at risk, and why this matters for legitimate operators who need to understand where the new lines are.
What the Law Actually Says
The SAFER Skies Act, embedded in the FY 2026 National Defense Authorization Act and signed by President Trump on December 18, 2025, creates three tiers of enhanced criminal penalties:
Tier 1: National Defense Airspace Violations
- Up to 5 years federal imprisonment for serious or repeat violations involving restricted airspace around military installations, nuclear facilities, or other designated national security sites
- Second offense in national defense airspace is now an automatic felony
Tier 2: Facilitation Enhancement
- Penalties doubled (or increased by 5 years) when a drone is used to facilitate any other felony
- This is the provision with the broadest implications
Tier 3: Contraband Delivery
- Specific heightened sentences for using drones to deliver contraband to correctional facilities
- Builds on existing state laws that already carry 5-10 year sentences in many jurisdictions
These federal penalties stack on top of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, which increased civil fines to $75,000 per infraction.
What "Facilitate" Means in Practice
The facilitation enhancement is where operators need to pay attention.
"Facilitate" doesn't mean you have to commit the underlying crime with the drone itself. It means you used the drone in furtherance of criminal activity—even if that use seems peripheral.
Examples that trigger the enhancement:
-
Surveillance for burglary: Using a drone to scout a target property before breaking in. California authorities reported a November 2024 burglary ring that used drones to identify entry points and determine when homes were empty. The drone flight itself wasn't illegal—using that intelligence to commit burglary makes it facilitation.
-
Counter-surveillance against law enforcement: Criminal organizations now routinely deploy drones to monitor police movements and warn of approaching patrols. Border Patrol agents report cartel drones tracking their positions to create windows for smuggling operations.
-
Drug trafficking reconnaissance: A 2019 case documented drones monitoring U.S. Customs and Border Protection activities to determine optimal timing for evading patrols. The drone wasn't carrying drugs—it was facilitating the trafficking operation.
-
Stalking and harassment: Using a drone to surveil a victim's movements, residence, or daily patterns in connection with stalking, harassment, or planning assault.
-
Escape assistance: Drones have been used to deliver tools to prisoners planning escapes. The drone operator faces both contraband delivery charges and facilitation enhancement for aiding the escape attempt.
The key distinction: the drone doesn't have to be the weapon or the delivery mechanism. If it supported the criminal operation in any material way, the enhancement applies.
The Prison Contraband Problem
The contraband delivery provision addresses what's become an epidemic in American corrections.
The numbers are staggering:
- Georgia's Department of Corrections reported nearly 400 drone incidents across state prisons in 2025 alone
- A single South Carolina facility documented repeated drone deliveries including drugs, phones, and weapons
- Federal data shows drone-based contraband delivery has increased by over 300% since 2020
What's being delivered:
- Cell phones (enabling continued criminal coordination from inside)
- Narcotics (fentanyl, methamphetamine, synthetic cannabinoids)
- Weapons (handguns, knives, tools)
- Tobacco (high-value contraband in smoke-free facilities)
- Escape tools
Before SAFER Skies, federal prosecution of drone contraband delivery was inconsistent. State laws varied widely—some treated it as a misdemeanor, others as a felony with sentences up to 10 years.
The new federal framework establishes a floor: if you're caught delivering contraband to a federal facility, you're facing federal charges with enhanced sentencing. State facilities may still prosecute under state law, but federal charges can be added for operations crossing state lines or involving federal interests.
Organized Crime Has Already Adapted
The Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime published a comprehensive analysis in October 2025 documenting how criminal organizations have integrated drones into their operations.
Key findings:
- Mexican cartels have used drones for smuggling, reconnaissance, and improvised explosives delivery for years
- In October 2025, reports emerged of a cartel member sent to Ukraine specifically to learn FPV drone piloting through the International Legion—with plans to transfer those skills to criminal operations
- Fiber-optic controlled drones (resistant to jamming) have already entered cartel hands
- Criminal drone use is expanding from surveillance and smuggling into potential weaponization
The report notes that drones now account for 60-80% of front-line strikes in the Ukraine conflict. Criminal organizations are watching. The same tactics that destroy tanks can threaten rival operations, law enforcement, or civilian targets.
Colombia recorded its first lethal criminal drone attack in July 2024, killing a 10-year-old boy. ACLED data shows drone attacks by criminal and insurgent groups caused at least 11 deaths in the first five months of 2025.
The facilitation enhancement was designed with this evolution in mind. Legislators recognized that drones are becoming integral to organized crime operations—not just as delivery mechanisms, but as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms that enable everything from drug trafficking to targeted violence.
What This Means for Legitimate Operators
If you're a Part 107 pilot flying commercial operations, the facilitation enhancement shouldn't affect your work—assuming you're not involved in criminal activity.
But there are edge cases worth understanding:
Client liability: If you're hired to conduct aerial surveys and later discover your client used that imagery to plan illegal activity, document your engagement carefully. Contracts should specify permitted uses of deliverables.
Third-party requests: Be cautious about requests to surveil specific individuals, residences, or businesses without clear legal authorization. "I just want to check on my property" can mask stalking, harassment, or pre-crime reconnaissance.
Data retention: If law enforcement comes asking about flights near a crime scene, your logs, imagery, and communications become evidence. Know your retention policies and legal obligations.
Insurance implications: Criminal facilitation likely voids most aviation liability policies. If your drone is used in connection with criminal activity—even unknowingly—coverage may not apply.
The law doesn't require intent for civil liability. Criminal facilitation charges require knowledge, but civil exposure and regulatory consequences can follow even good-faith mistakes.
The Enforcement Challenge
Creating felony enhancements is the easy part. Enforcement is harder.
Attribution remains difficult. Most consumer drones don't transmit identifying information beyond Remote ID (which criminals disable). Tracing a drone back to its operator requires either catching them in the act, forensic examination of recovered hardware, or electronic surveillance.
Jurisdiction is fragmented. A drone launched from one county, crossing into another, delivering contraband to a state facility, operated by someone in a third state—who prosecutes? The federal enhancement provides a unified framework, but coordination between agencies remains inconsistent.
Detection capabilities vary wildly. The same SAFER Skies Act that created these penalties also authorized state and local law enforcement to detect and track drones. But authorization isn't capability. Most agencies lack the equipment, training, and personnel to identify drone threats before crimes are committed.
Prosecution requires evidence. Even with enhanced penalties, prosecutors need proof beyond reasonable doubt. Drone operations are often brief, conducted at night, and leave minimal physical evidence.
The deterrent effect depends on perceived risk of getting caught. For opportunistic criminals, the enhanced penalties may discourage drone use. For organized operations with resources to avoid attribution, the legal framework matters less than operational security.
What Comes Next
The facilitation enhancement represents a significant shift in how federal law treats drones in criminal contexts. Previously, the drone was incidental—a tool, like a car or a phone. Now it's an aggravating factor that increases consequences.
Expect several developments:
More prosecutions. DOJ will likely bring test cases to establish precedent and demonstrate the law has teeth. High-profile drone-facilitated crimes will draw federal attention.
State adoption. States without robust drone crime statutes will model new legislation on the federal framework. The facilitation enhancement concept will spread.
Insurance adjustments. Aviation insurers will update exclusions and underwriting criteria to address criminal facilitation risks. Premiums may adjust for operators in high-risk use cases.
Training requirements. Part 107 renewal and new certification programs may incorporate legal compliance modules covering criminal liability.
Technology mandates. Enhanced Remote ID requirements, geofencing enforcement, and flight logging mandates may follow as regulators seek better attribution capabilities.
The SAFER Skies Act addressed the authority gap that left most organizations unable to respond to drone threats. The felony enhancement addresses the consequence gap that made drone-facilitated crime relatively low-risk.
Neither solves the problem completely. But together, they represent the most significant federal action on drone crime in the technology's history.
The Operator's Responsibility
For legitimate drone operators, the message is straightforward: know what your drone is being used for.
If someone asks you to fly a mission that seems unusual—surveillance without clear authorization, repeated flights over the same private property, deliveries to locations that don't make sense—ask questions. Document your concerns. Decline work that doesn't pass the smell test.
The facilitation enhancement creates personal liability for enabling criminal activity. "I didn't know" may be a defense to criminal charges. It won't protect your certificate, your insurance, or your reputation.
The drone industry has spent years building credibility and fighting regulatory overreach. Every drone-facilitated crime makes that fight harder. Every operator who exercises judgment about what missions to accept helps maintain the operational freedom the rest of us depend on.
The law changed. The stakes increased. Fly accordingly.
Brian Rutherford is a USMC Reconnaissance veteran, FAA-certified drone pilot, and founder of Delalli Aviation LLC. He advises organizations on UAS policy, counter-drone strategy, and regulatory compliance.
Sources
- DRONELIFE: SAFER Skies Act Overview
- DroneXL: NDAA 2026 Local Police Drone Powers
- Global Initiative: Crime by Drone Report (October 2025)
- Newsweek: California Drone Burglary Investigation
- AMU Edge: How Gangs Use Drones Against Law Enforcement
- Corrections1: Prison Drone Incidents
- WRHI: South Carolina Prison Drone Deliveries
- Crowell & Moring: FY 2026 NDAA Analysis
- DRONELIFE: NDAA FY 2026 Counter-UAS Provisions
Stay Informed on Drone Threats
Weekly intelligence on C-UAS developments, regulatory changes, and security insights from a Part 107 pilot and defense veteran.
Join 500+ security professionals. Unsubscribe anytime.