A sweeping, nationwide flight restriction issued by the Trump administration is drawing sharp criticism for what legal experts and media organizations argue is an unprecedented infringement on First Amendment rights, specifically the ability to record law enforcement.

The restriction, designated FDC 6/4375, prohibits private drone operators, including professional and citizen journalists, from flying within half a mile (3000 feet horizontally) of any vehicle belonging to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or Customs and Border Protection (CBP). These agencies fall under the Department of Homeland Security, one of several federal entities whose “mobile assets” are now off-limits to drone surveillance.

Beginning January 16, 2026, and set to last an extraordinary 21 months until October 29, 2027, this order stands in stark contrast to typical Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs), which are usually short-lived and localized for events like natural disasters or presidential movements. Violators of FDC 6/4375 face criminal and civil penalties, including the potential seizure or destruction of their drones.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), alongside major news outlets including The New York Times and The Washington Post, demanded in January that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) revoke the restriction. Two months later, the FAA has yet to respond.

Critics highlight the practical implications of the order, noting that immigration agents often use unmarked rental cars or vehicles with switched license plates, making compliance difficult and accidental violations likely. The ability to record law enforcement has proven crucial for accountability, as demonstrated in cases like the extrajudicial killings of George Floyd, Renée Good, and Alex Pretti.

While the FAA asserts the TFR is within its lawful authority, the EFF argues it violates multiple constitutional rights, including the First Amendment, which nearly every federal appeals court has recognized as guaranteeing the right to record officers performing their duties. The original legal analysis challenging this restriction was principally authored by legal intern Raj Gambhir.

Sources:

eff.org