Fcc Unveils Expanded Drone Exemption List With Hundreds Of New Systems Approved
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has continued to expand its drone exemption list, …
31. July 2026
Detroit Stunned As City Unaware Of 22M Police Drone Grant Award
The city of Detroit has been awarded a $2.2 million grant from the Department of Justice to establish a police drone program, but the news came as a surprise to the city council, which was not informed about the application process. The grant is part of the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s FY25 Justice Reinvestment Initiative [1], a $19 million pool with a $4 million ceiling per site and a 36-month performance period.
The grant application was filed on June 10, just three days after the Grants.gov portion closed, which is a tight deadline for a city of Detroit’s size. Deputy Police Chief Mark Bliss told council members that the application was “completed abruptly” [2] to hit the deadline, as reported by BridgeDetroit’s Christine Ferretti. However, Terri Daniels of the city’s Office of Development and Grants said that the office moved fast and should have flagged the application [3].
The grant would fund a drone program for low-risk calls for service and make better use of the department’s two-member scout cars. This is a more efficient operational argument than most DFR pitches make, as Detroit made it in a document its own council never saw [4]. The drone program would also be locked out of Chinese-made hardware from day one, which narrows the field before Detroit evaluates a single aircraft [5].
The American Security Drone Act (ASDA) took full effect on December 22, 2025, and it reaches grant recipients [6], not just federal agencies. FAR 52.240-1 bars the use of federal funds to procure or operate any unmanned aircraft system from a covered foreign entity on or after that date [7]. The FCC also moved to add every foreign-made drone to its Covered List and blocked new equipment authorizations for DJI, Autel Robotics, and every other foreign manufacturer [8].
The practical result is that Detroit’s $2.2 million buys American-made drones from a short list led by Skydio, BRINC [9], and Flock Safety’s Aerodome. This is worth saying plainly because Tuesday’s debate treated hardware as an open question [5]. Washington already closed it.
The budget math deserves scrutiny too. Spread across 36 months, $2.2 million is roughly $733,000 a year to cover about 359 square kilometers (139 square miles) of land [6]. Orlando spent $6.83 million on 11 Skydio aircraft across nine docks. Warren, at roughly a quarter of Detroit’s area, built a joint police and fire program across six fixed sites [5]. Detroit’s grant funds a start, not a citywide network.
Detroit’s Fire Department already solved the problem that DPD skipped. The Detroit Fire Department owns fourteen Skydio X2E aircraft and got them through the city’s own oversight process [6], which makes DPD’s shortcut harder to defend. A draft of an approved drone policy sits with the 11-member civilian Board of Police Commissioners [5], and Bliss said the department expects BOPC sign-off in the coming weeks.
Council members were also critical of the lack of transparency and public input. Council Member Gabriela Santiago-Romero cited this as part of why she voted no [5], along with concerns about how police departments elsewhere have used the technology. She was right on the sequencing. A department that cannot point to an approved use policy should not be twelve weeks past a federal filing on a program that needs one [6].
Detroit has a history of struggling with surveillance oversight. The city’s Community Input Over Government Surveillance ordinance, effective June 2021 [10], requires a department to publish a Surveillance Technology Specification Report on the city website at least 14 days before council hearings on the technology. Drones fall squarely inside it [7], as the fire department’s own filings demonstrate.
However, Detroit has already lost in court over this [11]. In a published opinion issued October 9, 2025, in Eagan v City of Detroit [12], the Michigan Court of Appeals found the city violated the ordinance when it approved ShotSpotter contracts without posting the required report on time, and sent the case back to Wayne County Circuit Court to sort out a remedy.
This pattern is not new. Oakland County approved a Flock drone pilot in April over loud public objection [13], at a cost of $2.5 million for two years if the county keeps it past the December 15 opt-out [13]. Lansing introduced a 15-bill counter-drone package in February that would restrict what public agencies can buy and fly [14].
In conclusion, Detroit’s experience with the drone grant highlights the importance of transparency and public input in the application process [5]. While the grant itself is not problematic, the lack of council approval and the subsequent controversy surrounding the program’s implementation raises questions about the city’s ability to manage this technology effectively [6]. If Detroit withdraws and refiles clean next cycle, it loses a year and keeps its credibility. Given what the last one cost the city in court [11], that is the cheaper trade.
Sources:
- BridgeDetroit, reporting by Christine Ferretti
- Bureau of Justice Assistance FY25 JRI NOFO [1]
- FAR 52.240-1 [7]
- City of Detroit CIOGS filings
- Michigan Court of Appeals opinion in Eagan v City of Detroit (No. 366454) [12]