Counter-UAS Systems: Navigating Legal, Regulatory and Practical Challenges on Both Sides of the Atlantic

The drone threat has evolved from hypothetical concern to urgent reality. In a recent joint webinar co-hosted by the Security Industry Association (SIA) and the Confederation of European Security Services (CoESS), industry leaders and policy experts gathered to discuss the mounting challenges of uncrewed aircraft systems and the critical gaps in current defense capabilities.

FULL VIDEO: Countering the UAS Threat in the United States and Europe

From Potential to Real: The Escalating Drone Threat

“When it comes to internal security, the EU has not been affected for the time being by a terrorist attack with the use of drones,” noted Valerio Liberatori, policy officer at the European Commission. “But recent incidents involving drones over sensitive areas in Europe have highlighted a gap in our current defense capabilities.”

The threat landscape is diverse and growing. From data theft at movie studios to smuggling operations at ports and prisons and from ecoterrorism at airports to potential catastrophic attacks on chemical facilities, drones present security challenges that traditional perimeter defenses simply cannot address. As Cornelius Toussaint from CONDOR Group Germany pointedly observed, “A high fence is no longer any protection against drones.”

The Authority Gap: Who Can Legally Counter Drone Threats?

United States: Federal Authorities Only

In the United States, counterdrone (aka C-UAS) authorities remain strictly limited to four federal agencies: the U.S. Departments of Defense, Justice, Energy and Homeland Security. This authorization dates back to 2018 as a five-year pilot program that has been extended through eight continuing resolutions—but never expanded.

“We’ve been on this conversation for quite a while, and we still haven’t gotten congressional action in the right direction,” explained Brett Feddersen, vice president of strategy and government affairs at D-Fend Solutions.

Despite eight years of safe federal operations without privacy violations or incidents, Congress remains hesitant to extend mitigation authorities to state and local law enforcement, let alone private security professionals.

The reality is stark—the United States has 18,000 police departments, and the federal government simply lacks the resources to protect every critical infrastructure site and sensitive location—yet the legislative framework hasn’t caught up to operational needs.

Europe: Detection Without Mitigation

The European landscape presents similar challenges.

“From the perspective of our industry in Europe, we currently cannot do much more than drone detection,” Alexander Frank, Deputy Director General at CoESS, explained. “We can verify to some extent, but only with very few exceptions, we cannot mitigate this threat.”

While some progress is being made—with Sweden and Finland offering limited exemptions for private security to protect critical infrastructure—these remain small exceptions to the broader rule. The European Commission is conducting a comprehensive legal mapping exercise to identify regulatory barriers, with results expected to inform potential new legislation in 2026.

Technology Outpaces Regulation

A consistent theme emerged from speakers on both continents: technology has advanced far beyond the legal frameworks governing its use. As Toussaint emphasized, “The laws are on the level of 2018, but the technology is going to 2030, and we’re far behind this thing.”

Detection Technologies and Multi-Layered Approaches

Current counter-drone solutions employ a multi-layered approach combining various detection methods:

• Passive radio frequency (RF) detection systems that identify drones and locate pilots without interfering with other communications
• Radar systems for tracking drone movements
• Optical/camera systems for visual confirmation
• Acoustic sensors for detecting drone signatures
• Multi-sensor fusion for comprehensive coverage

However, the threat continues to evolve. Fiber-optic controlled drones, DIY platforms and artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled autonomous systems present detection challenges that push beyond traditional radio frequency-based solutions.

The Mitigation Challenge

When it comes to actually stopping hostile drones, options remain limited and legally constrained:

• Net capture systems work best against stationary or slow-moving targets
• RF takeover/cyber methods raise legal concerns about unauthorized access
• Kinetic solutions (shooting drones down) face strict limitations outside military contexts and can add risk and liability if over populated areas
• Electronic warfare/jamming requires special authorization and raises interference concerns

Real-World Applications: Major Events as Testing Grounds

The upcoming FIFA World Cup in the United States, along with America’s 250th anniversary celebration in 2026, are driving innovative approaches to the authorization problem. The FBI is training and deputizing state and local law enforcement officers to operate federal counterdrone systems during these high-profile events.

“This is a proof of concept that will show the rest of the country and parts of the world that you can do this at scale across multiple regions,” Feddersen noted.

Funding has already been allocated through federal emergency management channels to support these operations.

Cross-learning between major events is occurring, with lessons from the Paris Olympics, the Euro Cup and other European events informing U.S. planning, and vice versa.

Critical Infrastructure: The Private Security Imperative

Perhaps the most urgent gap identified in the webinar concerns critical infrastructure protection. In Germany alone, there are approximately 30,000 critical infrastructure sites, plus another 30,000 sites of potential interest to hostile actors. Neither military nor law enforcement has the resources to protect all these locations.

“If you see that somebody is climbing over your fence and you cannot do something, this doesn’t help,” Toussaint stated. “But this is the situation with drones” for private security companies in Europe.

The time sensitivity is critical. At a major chemical facility like BASF Ludwigshafen, located in the middle of a city, a drone launched from nearby housing has a reaction time of just 90 to 120 seconds. Calling police and waiting for their response is simply not viable.

European Commission Initiatives

The European Commission has launched multiple initiatives to address the counterdrone challenge:

• A Counter-Drone Expert Group with all member states participating and sharing best practices
• Cross-border support mechanisms for special intervention units during major events
• AI-based incident tracking platform to better understand the threat landscape
• The COURAGEOUS project developing pre-standards for harmonized testing methodology and voluntary performance requirements
• Living lab at JPSG premises testing counterdrone solutions in operational environments
• Training programs for law enforcement, with plans to extend to private-sector professionals

A new upgraded communication will be released in Q1 2026.

Practical Recommendations for Security Professionals

While waiting for legal frameworks to catch up, security professionals can take several steps:

Immediate Actions

1. Build awareness programs about drone threats comparable to cybersecurity awareness initiatives
2. Deploy passive detection systems (DTI—detect, track, identify) which are generally legal for situational awareness
3. Conduct penetration testing to understand vulnerabilities to drone-based threats
4. Perform regular checks for items that drones might have deposited on roofs or in secure areas
5. Develop response procedures even if mitigation isn’t yet authorized

Strategic Positioning

1. Join active trade associations to amplify industry voice in policy discussions
2. Engage with legislators at state and federal levels to explain operational needs
3. Participate in standards development processes for detection and mitigation systems
4. Establish relationships with local law enforcement for coordination
5. Document incidents and near-misses to build the evidence base for policy change

Technology Considerations

When evaluating counter-drone solutions:

• Ensure vendors can clearly explain their system’s capabilities and limitations
• Verify systems have been tested by regulatory authorities (the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States and similar bodies in Europe)
• Look for open API architectures that allow integration with other security systems
• Understand that no single technology solves all scenarios—layered approaches are essential
• Prioritize systems that can detect DIY and nonstandard platforms, not just commercial drones

Looking Ahead

The drone security challenge will only intensify. As Toussaint warned based on his observations in Ukraine, “All the things we discussed one year, two years in the past—a month later, it’s not any longer valid.”

The good news is that momentum is building. Public awareness has dramatically increased following recent incidents at major airports and other facilities. Policymakers are beginning to understand that this is not a technology problem but a legislative and policy issue. The technology exists; the authorization framework needs to catch up.

For security professionals protecting critical infrastructure, the message is clear: start with detection, build awareness, establish procedures and work with your industry associations to advocate for the authorities needed to truly protect the assets in your care. The threat won’t wait for perfect policy solutions, and neither can we.

Key Takeaways

• Drone threats have evolved from potential to real, affecting both civilian and military targets
• Current authorities are inadequate, limited to federal agencies in the U.S. and primarily detection only in Europe
• Technology exists but legal frameworks lag, with laws dating from 2018 facing 2030-era threats
• Private security involvement is essential as law enforcement lacks resources to protect all critical infrastructure
• Multi-layered detection approaches work best, combining RF, radar, optical and acoustic sensors
• Major events are driving innovation in deputization and cross-border cooperation
• Passive detection is generally legal now and provides valuable situational awareness
• Industry advocacy is critical to advancing policy and regulatory frameworks

The counter-UAS challenge requires collaboration across borders, between public and private sectors and among technology providers, operators and policymakers. Only through coordinated effort will we develop the comprehensive frameworks needed to address this evolving threat.

In creating this blog, content from the Countering the UAS Threat in the United States and Europe webinar was summarized using multiple large language models and reviewed by human editors.