Proposed FAA rules ground journalists

NPPA remains concerned about the continuing expansion of airspace restrictions that may significantly impair lawful aerial newsgathering.”

Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association

Drone journalism is running into roadblocks.

The federal government, under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), has restricted airspaces around protests, law enforcement operations and other sensitive activities. Those restrictions led to some legal challenges (and wins for journalists) in the short-term, but newly proposed regulations will challenge press freedom and have a deeper impact.

Drone operations are primarily governed by the FAA under Part 107, which imposes safety regulations regarding altitude, line of sight and operations over people, according to Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA). Over the past year, the FAA has invoked more Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR).

“These restrictions are often broad in scope, implemented quickly and difficult to interpret in real time,” Osterreicher said.

In March, photojournalist Rob Levine and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press sued the FAA over its restriction that prevented drones from flying within 3,000 feet of Department of Homeland Security buildings and vehicles. The FAA issued the TFR in January during ICE’s immigration raids in Minnesota. The Reporters Committee noted there were no means of verifying in advance whether DHS vehicles, such as unmarked cars, were operating in a particular location.

Levine and the Reporters Committee scored a win in April, when the FAA withdrew its nationwide ban on drone flights near Homeland Security vehicles. The FAA issued an advisory that drone journalists would not be charged with civil or criminal penalties for documenting federal agents.

“We’re glad to see the FAA rescind its original order, which was an egregious overreach that had serious consequences for reporters nationwide,” said Grayson Clary, a Reporters Committee attorney, in a statement. “But this kind of arbitrary back-and-forth from the FAA is exactly the problem, and we intend to make clear to the D.C. Circuit that this restriction never should have been implemented in the first place.”

The struggle between the federal government and drone journalists is not over.

In May, the federal government proposed new rules that would greatly restrict airspace access by expanding the definition of “critical infrastructure,” which could include prisons, chemical plants, amusement parks, hospitals and large corporate headquarters. The FAA estimates that roughly 125,000 facilities across 16 sectors could qualify for new drone restrictions.

“This rule is essential to safeguarding America’s critical infrastructure and upholding the president’s directive on restoring airspace sovereignty,” said FAA administrator Bryan Bedford. “It gives law enforcement a clear, effective tool to deter unauthorized drone activity around sensitive sites that could pose serious risks to public safety and national security.”

The measure aims to create two categories of airspace restrictions — one that would prohibit drones within a defined lateral boundary and altitude ceiling over qualifying facilities. Another would allow drones around some facilities if authorized in advance by the FAA and the sponsoring federal agency, such as the Department of Defense or Department of Justice. Those authorizations would likely be limited to specific missions like infrastructure inspection or law enforcement rather than news gathering.

The proposed rule is open for public comment through July 6.

“NPPA remains concerned about the continuing expansion of airspace restrictions that may significantly impair lawful aerial newsgathering,” Osterreicher said. “While we recognize the importance of legitimate security protections for sensitive infrastructure, drone journalism has become an essential reporting tool that allows journalists to safely and effectively document protests, disasters, environmental events and government activity in ways often impossible from the ground or even from aircraft. Any restrictions on those activities must be narrowly tailored, transparent, geographically precise and carefully balanced against the First Amendment interests implicated when journalists are prevented from documenting matters of public concern.”

Bob Miller has spent more than 25 years in local newsrooms, including 12 years as an executive editor with Rust Communications. He also produces an independent true crime investigative podcast called The Lawless Files.