Pentagon Watchdog Flags Drone Defense Gaps at US Bases

A Pentagon watchdog report released Tuesday warns that gaps in defense policy are leaving critical US military bases vulnerable to an escalating drone threat. The Inspector General's assessment reveals that inconsistent and confusing counter-drone directives have created security blind spots across the armed forces.

The investigation examined ten military installations where drone incursions have occurred, finding multiple examples of sensitive sites left exposed. These facilities handle some of the nation's most critical assets, including nuclear deterrence operations, high-explosive weapons, and advanced aircraft, yet lack clear authorization to defend against uncrewed aerial systems.

The core issue identified in the report is a lack of consistent guidance for defending "covered assets"—a legal term for US-based sites authorized to use specific counter-drone defenses. While the Defense Department has issued multiple policies governing how the military can detect, disrupt, or disable uncrewed aerial systems, these directives are not standardized.

This jumbled policy landscape leaves base leaders unaware that their installations qualify for protection. The term refers to locations within the US that deal with sensitive missions like:

• Nuclear deterrence and missile defense
• Presidential protection and air defense
• Handling of "high yield" explosives
• Critical aircraft manufacturing and maintenance

The lack of awareness derived from confusing policy risks leaving bases exposed to uncrewed threats, a growing concern for national security.

The Inspector General report highlights specific examples where "covered assets" were left uncovered due to unclear policies. An Air Force base in Arizona, where most F-35 pilots are trained, is not authorized to defend against UAS incursions because pilot training does not qualify as a "covered" activity under Pentagon policy.

This is despite the Air Force describing the F-35 as "an indispensable tool in future homeland defense." Another Air Force facility in California that manufactures aircraft repair parts, conducts aircraft maintenance, and produces the Global Hawk—an ultra-advanced large surveillance drone that costs more than the F-35A—has also been left vulnerable.

Air Force officials told us that the government-owned, contractor-operated facility was denied coverage during the active incursions.

The report notes this California site experienced a series of drone incursions in 2024, yet was denied coverage during those active events.

Concerns about drone threats have grown dramatically as small, inexpensive commercial drones have become more popular and easier to use. These systems lower the barrier to entry for surveillance and precision strike capabilities, creating challenges for security personnel who are often constrained in their response options or improperly trained and equipped to react.

In 2024, multiple bases within the US and abroad experienced strings of drone incursions. These events can involve one or more unmanned aircraft entering restricted airspace or operating close enough to installations to trigger alarms, even when the drones are not linked to foreign adversaries.

These cheap systems are increasingly changing the battlefield, threatening US installations, and wounding or killing our troops.

The Department of Defense's counter-drone strategy, released in the final months of the Biden administration, acknowledged that adversary unmanned systems have evolved rapidly in recent years.

The problem extends beyond determining whether a site is covered. The process for obtaining counter-drone systems—and securing rapid legal approval to use them when needed—is complex and slow, reflecting legal restrictions on using electronic jamming or force inside the US.

Some units have received counter-drone tools such as portable "flyaway kits"—deployable systems meant to be moved quickly between sites—and the "Dronebuster," a handheld electronic-warfare device that emits a signal to disrupt or disable an offending drone. However, the Army secretary recently questioned the latter system's effectiveness, underscoring broader uncertainty about how best to defend US bases.

The US military is trying to catch up with the threat, driven in large part by the drone-dominant Ukraine war. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced the creation of Joint Interagency Task Force 401 last August, stating, "there's no doubt that the threats we face today from hostile drones grow by the day."

The challenge for airspace management is how to deter or defeat such incursions without endangering surrounding civilian communities or legitimate air traffic. As defense expert Mark Cancian noted, "That rules out everything kinetic."

This has become a huge problem for both military and civilian airfields and will get worse as drone usage proliferates further.

Efforts to address the drone problem have been in the works for years, though a Center for New American Security report released last September said the military's efforts were "hindered by insufficient scale and urgency." The Pentagon's latest findings underscore the urgent need for standardized policies and streamlined processes to protect critical installations from an increasingly accessible and sophisticated threat.