CBP Predator Drones Over LA: Escalation of Federal Surveillance and Civil Liberties Concerns

In a move that underscored the expanding role of federal agencies in domestic affairs, United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) confirmed in June 2025 that it had been operating military-grade Predator drones over the skies of Los Angeles. The confirmation came amid widespread protests in the city, drawing immediate attention and sparking debate about the boundaries of federal law enforcement, the use of advanced surveillance technology, and the potential erosion of civil liberties.

CBP's statement, initially provided to 404 Media and later reiterated, clarified that its Air and Marine Operations (AMO) unit was providing "aerial support to federal law enforcement partners conducting operations in the Greater Los Angeles area, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement." The agency emphasized that its efforts were focused on "situational awareness and officer safety support as requested." However, the deployment of such powerful, military-caliber unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) over a major American city during civilian unrest raised alarms among civil liberties advocates, technology researchers, and even state officials.

Understanding the Technology: The MQ-9 Reaper (Predator B)

The drones in question are MQ-9 Reapers, often referred to as Predator B drones. These are not the small, commercially available quadcopters commonly used by local police departments or hobbyists. The MQ-9 Reaper is a medium-altitude, long-endurance (MALE) UAV designed primarily for surveillance, reconnaissance, and strike missions. While CBP's fleet is typically unarmed, the platform itself is capable of carrying precision-guided munitions. More importantly for domestic surveillance purposes, these drones are equipped with sophisticated sensor packages.

Key capabilities of the MQ-9 Reaper include:

• High-Resolution Cameras: Capable of capturing detailed video and still imagery from high altitudes, allowing operators to monitor large areas and track individuals or vehicles.
• Infrared Sensors: Enabling operations in low light or darkness and the ability to detect heat signatures.
• Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR): Providing detailed imagery through clouds or smoke, and potentially capable of ground mapping and tracking.
• Communications Intercept Capabilities (Potential): While not always confirmed for domestic variants, military versions can be equipped for signals intelligence.
• Long Endurance: Capable of remaining airborne for many hours, providing persistent surveillance over a target area.

The sheer power and sophistication of these sensors mean that a single drone can collect vast amounts of data on civilian activities below, raising significant privacy concerns when deployed over populated areas far from traditional border enforcement zones.

A Pattern of Expanding Federal Reach

The deployment of CBP Predator drones over Los Angeles was not an isolated incident, but rather part of a discernible pattern of federal agencies utilizing advanced surveillance assets, often associated with military or border security operations, in domestic law enforcement contexts. A notable precedent occurred in 2020, during the nationwide protests following the murder of George Floyd. At that time, CBP flew a Predator drone over Minneapolis, drawing similar criticism and questions about the justification and scope of such surveillance.

Researchers and civil liberties groups have tracked instances of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) drones, including Predators, operating over various US cities in the years since, often with little public explanation or transparency regarding their specific missions or the data collected. This consistent pattern suggests a growing willingness within federal agencies to deploy high-end surveillance technology domestically, blurring the lines between border security, national security, and local law enforcement.

The context of the LA deployment further amplified these concerns. The flights coincided with the Trump administration's decision to deploy active-duty Marines and federalize the National Guard in California, actions taken despite objections from California Governor Gavin Newsom. This confluence of events—federal troops on the ground and federal military-grade drones in the air—painted a picture of expanding federal involvement, and potentially control, over situations typically managed by state and local authorities.

Matthew Feeney, an emerging technologies researcher and advocacy manager at Big Brother Watch, highlighted this aspect, stating, "Military gear has been used for domestic law enforcement for a long time, but flying military gear over LA at a time when the president has sent military units against the wishes of the governor is noteworthy." He added that if the federal government frames immigration as a national security issue, the use of military hardware in response becomes less surprising, though no less concerning.

The Tension Between Surveillance and Civil Liberties

One of the most contentious aspects of the CBP drone flights over Los Angeles is their potential impact on First Amendment protected activities, specifically the right to protest and assemble. CBP explicitly stated that its AMO was "not engaged in the surveillance of first amendment activities." This statement echoes a commitment made by the DHS in December 2015.

A DHS "Privacy, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Unmanned Aircraft Systems Working Group" document from that time stated, "Unmanned aircraft system-recorded data should not be collected, disseminated or retained solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the US Constitution, such as the First Amendment’s protections of religion, speech, press, assembly, and redress of grievances (e.g., protests, demonstrations)."

However, the practical reality of supporting federal law enforcement partners, including ICE, during protests raises significant questions about how this policy is implemented and enforced. As critics point out, it is difficult to understand how aerial surveillance can effectively "support" operations related to protests without, in fact, monitoring the protests themselves and capturing imagery of participants. The stated purpose of providing "situational awareness" inherently involves observing what is happening on the ground, including the movements and activities of large groups of people gathered for expressive purposes.

Patrick Eddington, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute specializing in homeland security and civil liberties, warned about the potential for escalation. "The more the protests spread to other cities, the more of that kind of surveillance we’ll see," he predicted, suggesting that the LA incident could be a harbinger of increased federal aerial surveillance during future periods of civil unrest across the country.

The Normalization of Military Technology in Domestic Policing

The use of military-grade equipment by domestic law enforcement agencies is not a new phenomenon in the United States. Programs like the Department of Defense's 1033 program have transferred billions of dollars worth of surplus military equipment, ranging from armored vehicles to firearms, to state and local police departments since the 1990s. Proponents argue this equipment enhances officer safety and capability in high-risk situations. Critics, however, contend that it contributes to the militarization of police, fostering an adversarial mindset and escalating confrontations, particularly in minority communities.

The deployment of Predator drones represents a significant technological leap in this trend. Unlike armored personnel carriers or assault rifles, which are primarily tools for physical engagement or protection, advanced UAVs like the MQ-9 are primarily surveillance platforms. Their use over civilian populations shifts the focus from responding to specific threats to broad, persistent monitoring of public spaces and activities.

UAV researcher Faine Greenwood commented on this trend, noting that while the use of Predator drones over LA might not be entirely unprecedented or surprising given the political climate, "it’s still a terrible use of military technology on civilian populations." She emphasized that this pattern continues a worrying trend and urged the public to "be angry about it and refuse to normalize it."

The normalization concern is critical. Each instance of federal agencies deploying advanced military or border security assets domestically, particularly in contexts unrelated to traditional border enforcement, sets a precedent. Over time, these actions can become routine, eroding public expectations of privacy and the distinction between military operations and domestic law enforcement. The lack of transparency surrounding the specific operational parameters, data retention policies, and oversight mechanisms for these drone flights exacerbates this issue, leaving the public largely unaware of the scope and impact of the surveillance.

The Role of Federal Agencies and State Authority

The deployment of CBP drones over Los Angeles also highlights the complex and sometimes contentious relationship between federal agencies and state/local authorities. While federal agencies have mandates related to national security, border protection, and enforcing federal laws, policing within cities and states is traditionally the purview of local and state law enforcement.

The decision by the Trump administration to deploy federal assets, including troops and potentially directing CBP drone support, over the objections of the state governor, underscored a willingness to assert federal authority in ways that many saw as overreaching. This dynamic raises questions about federalism and the appropriate division of responsibilities in responding to domestic unrest or other internal matters.

CBP's justification for the drone flights—supporting federal law enforcement partners like ICE—ties the operation back to federal mandates, even if those mandates (like immigration enforcement) are being pursued in a context of broader civil unrest. However, the broad surveillance capabilities of the Predator drones extend far beyond specific targets related to immigration enforcement and can encompass the entire area of operations, including protest activities.

The use of federal assets like CBP drones in such situations can also create confusion and potential conflicts with local law enforcement and state authorities who are primarily responsible for managing public order within their jurisdictions. Clear lines of authority, communication, and coordination are essential, yet the circumstances surrounding the LA deployment suggested a top-down federal intervention that bypassed or overruled state preferences.

Data Collection, Retention, and Use

Beyond the immediate act of surveillance, the data collected by these powerful drones presents another layer of civil liberties concern. High-resolution video footage, thermal imagery, and other sensor data can be stored, analyzed, and potentially shared with other agencies. Without clear, publicly available policies on data retention, access, and use, there is a risk that information gathered during a surveillance operation ostensibly for one purpose (e.g., officer safety) could be used for other purposes, potentially including tracking individuals, monitoring political activities, or building databases of protesters.

The DHS policy from 2015 attempts to address this by stating data should not be collected *solely* for monitoring First Amendment activities. However, this leaves open the possibility that data collected for other stated purposes (like situational awareness or officer safety) *incidentally* captures First Amendment activities, and how that data is then handled becomes critical. Is it immediately discarded? Is it retained? Who has access to it, and under what circumstances can it be used?

Transparency regarding these policies is crucial for maintaining public trust and ensuring accountability. The lack of detailed information about the LA drone operations—how long they flew, what areas they covered, what data was collected, and what happened to that data—fuels suspicion and reinforces the perception that such surveillance operates in a grey area, potentially infringing on constitutional rights.

The Future of Domestic Drone Surveillance

The deployment of CBP Predator drones over Los Angeles serves as a stark reminder of the increasing sophistication of surveillance technology available to government agencies and the potential for its use in domestic contexts. As drone technology continues to evolve, becoming smaller, more capable, and less expensive, the potential for widespread aerial surveillance by various government entities—federal, state, and local—will only grow.

The LA incident underscores the urgent need for robust public debate, clear legal frameworks, and strong oversight mechanisms governing the use of such technology. Questions that need to be addressed include:

• What are the permissible purposes for federal agencies to conduct aerial surveillance over US cities?
• What types of technology are appropriate for domestic law enforcement, and where should the line be drawn regarding military-grade assets?
• What data can be collected, how long can it be retained, and who can access it?
• What level of transparency is required regarding drone operations over populated areas?
• How can accountability be ensured when policies are violated?

Without clear rules and public accountability, the risk of mission creep, abuse of power, and the chilling effect on constitutional rights, such as the freedom of assembly and speech, becomes significant. The normalization of powerful federal surveillance assets operating over American cities, initially justified by specific circumstances like border security or supporting other federal agencies, could gradually expand to become a routine aspect of domestic policing, fundamentally altering the relationship between the government and its citizens.

The experience in Los Angeles highlights that the debate over federal drone surveillance is not theoretical; it is happening now, over our cities, utilizing technology designed for warfare and border control. The response to these deployments, and the policies put in place to govern future uses, will play a critical role in shaping the future of privacy and civil liberties in the United States.

As Faine Greenwood and other experts suggest, public awareness and refusal to accept such deployments as normal are essential steps in pushing back against the creeping expansion of federal surveillance power. The skies above American cities should not routinely be patrolled by military-grade drones, regardless of the stated justification, without rigorous oversight, clear limitations, and public consent.

The incident serves as a call to action for policymakers, civil liberties advocates, and the public to demand greater transparency and accountability from federal agencies regarding their domestic surveillance capabilities and operations. The future trajectory of federal involvement in civilian matters and the balance between security and liberty depend on addressing these critical questions now.