Michigan State Government Introduces Comprehensive Drone Regulation Package
LANSING — The Michigan State Legislature is pushing forward an extensive 15-bill package designed to regulate unmanned aircraft systems and protect critical infrastructure from potential drone threats. The legislation, known as SHIELD — Securing Homeland and Infrastructure with Emerging Laws for Drones — represents one of the most ambitious state-level drone regulation efforts in the country.
The bipartisan package includes 12 sponsors with six Democrats and six Republicans leading the charge. State Rep. William Bruck, R-Erie Township, serves as the chief sponsor and has been advocating for the legislation since its introduction in December 2025.
"We did very well to avoid a federal pre-emption situation by adding a couple phrases here and there and making sure while we were pushing the envelope obviously, we were not pushing past some hard lines," Bruck said.
The legislation aims to test the boundaries of what sort of drone rules a state can issue without conflicting with federal aviation authority, which remains under the purview of the Federal Aviation Administration.
Key Provisions of the SHIELD Package
The most controversial provision would give non-federal law enforcement officers the authority to disable or destroy an unmanned aircraft deemed to be a threat. Bruck pointed to the federal Safer Skies Act, which Congress passed in December 2025 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, as supporting legislation that signals Congress's intent to grant state and local police greater counter-drone authority.
"With the Safer Skies Act and the fact that World Cup tournament going on this year, there's a lot of granting of what traditionally were federal authorizations for counter-UAS," Bruck said, referring to counter-unmanned aircraft systems operations.
The Safer Skies Act authorizes trained and certified state, local, tribal and territorial law enforcement to disable drones that pose a credible threat to public safety, large events, critical infrastructure and correctional facilities. Bruck noted that the Act is likely to pave the way for future federal legislation giving even broader counter-drone authorities to states.
Restrictions on Foreign-Made Drones and Critical Infrastructure
Other bills in the package would prohibit state agencies from purchasing drones or related equipment from companies named on the U.S. Department of Defense list of companies with significant connections to the Chinese military. The legislation would also prohibit the operation of a drone over a law enforcement facility, a correctional facility, or any site designated as critical infrastructure.
According to the Michigan Advance, the legislation would create no drone zones over critical infrastructure such as power plants, government buildings, law enforcement facilities, and even data centers. These bills were introduced in December by state Rep. William Bruck, R-Monroe County.
Bruck explained that the legislation comes amid concerns about public safety and national security. "We even see what's happening in the Iran conflict right now," Bruck said. "Drones are being flown all over the Middle East with explosive-laden drones, weaponized drones. They're having a devastating effect in areas. We could have that here, too, in America. There's nothing that keeps that from occurring."
Expanding No Drone Zones and Trespassing Laws
The proposed pieces of legislation call for extending existing state trespassing restrictions to cover UAV flights. One bill restricts drone flights over critical infrastructure, such as power plants, data centers and airports. Another proposed law would expand trespassing regulations to ban drone flights over private property where someone is using a drone in a way that prohibits the resident or the owner from having a peaceful life and interfering with their privacy.
The legislation does carve out exemptions for commercial drone operators and public safety agencies that fly drones. Violators could be subject to a four-year felony and fines of up to $2,500. Bruck said a substitute to the bill would include less strict penalties in cases of first-time, non-malicious offenders who accidentally break the law.
The bill package also requires the Michigan Department of Transportation to purchase, develop or contract out development of an app that an individual must then use while operating a drone. Bruck said the app would give a warning when a drone operator is approaching a restricted zone.
Another bill in the package would require MDOT to create and maintain a publicly-accessible, state geofencing drone database that lists restricted zones.
Strengthening MDOT Role in Drone Regulation
Under the proposed legislation, the Aeronautics Division of the Michigan Department of Transportation would be empowered to keep track of all registered drones in the state and to help enforce regulations in drone-restricted areas. MDOT would be required to maintain a database of all commercially operated drones in the state and to share that information with law enforcement agencies as required.
"If security or police had to identify a certain drone nomenclature, the MDOT would have that information," Bruck said.
Essentially, MDOT would maintain the same drone registration information as the FAA, but having the data accessible through a state agency would make it easier for state and local law enforcement personnel to access the data more quickly.
The proposed legislation would also enable MDOT to establish aerial mobility corridors to accommodate the future growth of drone usages, such as delivery service, in the state.
Bruck said he is happy that the comprehensive package of proposed legislation would strengthen Michigan's role in regulating drone traffic in the state, while encouraging the growth of legitimate drone usage and avoiding the issues of federal pre-emption of state law.
Counter-UAS Authority and National Security Concerns
Rep. Mike Harris, R-Waterford Township, a former law enforcement officer and drone hobbyist who sponsored legislation in the package, said drones are now being used in real world conflicts and attacks. "That technology does not stay overseas," he said. "It spreads, it becomes cheaper and becomes much easier to use."
Bruck gave the example of a 2025 Ukrainian drone strike on Russia called Operation Spiderweb, that destroyed around 20 percent of Russia's operational strategic bomber fleet on the ground. He also noted that at the Butler, Pennsylvania, shooting of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, the shooter is believed to have scouted the location with a drone prior to carrying out the attack.
In Michigan, Bruck said concerts in open-air stadiums have been delayed due to drone incursions.
At the same time, he recognized that the emerging technology is also being operated by companies like Amazon to make deliveries, and by public safety officials who can use thermal imaging to find missing people.
Concerns from Drone Industry Stakeholders
Not everyone supports the legislation. Michigan Aeronautics Commission Chair Benjamin Carter expressed concern that the package could ultimately drive unsafe use of drones by co-mingling federal and state authority and by creating a patchwork of restrictions that cause uncertainty for pilots.
The commission is responsible for the general supervision of all aeronautics within the state, regulating airports and flight schools and promoting Michigan's $22 billion aviation industry.
Other groups like Grand Rapids-based technology and drone company Westwood AI said the legislation places Michigan at the forefront internationally when it comes to drone innovation, creating the certainty and sustainability required for investment.
The Michigan Drone Association falls somewhere in the middle. While the association is generally in support of the package, according to testimony from representative Matt Rybar, the group with over 800 individual members and 140 member groups wants to work to address technology limitations that would put drone operators in a bit of a corner.
Rybar said the key is ensuring a difference in penalties for negligent and malicious flying, along with making sure that equitable access to airspace is maintained and federal regulations aren't preempted. He said some measures in the bills could be impractical to implement, including the requirement for MDOT to create and maintain a publicly-accessible, state geofencing drone database that lists restricted zones, which he described as an unfunded mandate.
MDOT indicated the database would require significant additional resources.
Committee Hearing and Next Steps
The bills were referred to the state House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. A hearing was held on Tuesday, which was the last of three committee discussions on the legislation. No votes have been cast.
Bruck said he hopes to get the bill package passed by the Senate and signed into law by the end of summer 2026. "I already had one meeting with the Senate floor leader," Bruck said. "I'm going to set up more meetings in April to try to grease the skids in the Senate."
He said he hopes that the bipartisan nature of the bill package will help ease its passage through the upper House. "There are 15 bills, 12 sponsors. We have six Democrats and six Republicans as the main sponsors, and so I'm very optimistic that we'll be able to get it through the Senate," Bruck said.
Federal Pre-emption Considerations
The bill that is most likely to test the limits of pre-emption would give non-federal law enforcement officers the authority to disable or destroy an unmanned aircraft deemed to be a threat. However, Bruck pointed to the federal Safer Skies Act, which Congress passed in December 2025 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, as signaling Congress's intent to give state and local police greater authority to conduct counter-UAS operations.
"With the Safer Skies Act and the fact that World Cup tournament going on this year, there's a lot of granting of what traditionally were federal authorizations for counter-UAS," Bruck said.
He added that the Safer Skies Act is likely to pave the way for future federal legislation giving even broader counter-drone authorities to the states. "We look for that as a good model moving forward that the federal government is going to have to empower states, especially with the threat level from drones around the world," Bruck said.
Balancing Security and Innovation
Bruck said the comprehensive package of proposed legislation would strengthen Michigan's role in regulating drone traffic in the state, while encouraging the growth of legitimate drone usage and avoiding the issues of federal pre-emption of state law. "I'm very satisfied with where we landed," Bruck said. "I think we've been able to thread the needle, to keep away from some issues."
He said the legislation positions Michigan as a leader in the realm of drone regulation nationally. "I think this positions Michigan as a leader in this whole realm," he said, adding that giving MDOT greater responsibility over lower-level aviation would help encourage the growth of future air mobility operations.
"That needs to expand, but we need to be balancing that with security and safety of the population and our critical infrastructure," Bruck said. "So I'm very happy where we ended up, very happy to be in the lead nationally."
What's Next
Bruck said he hopes the bipartisan package moves through the Senate in the middle of next month. He plans to continue setting up meetings with Senate leadership in April to facilitate passage.
The legislation represents a significant expansion of state authority over drone regulation and reflects growing concerns about the dual-use nature of unmanned aircraft systems — their potential for both beneficial applications and malicious attacks.
As the technology continues to evolve and become more accessible, state lawmakers are attempting to establish a regulatory framework that protects public safety and critical infrastructure while allowing legitimate drone usage to continue.
The outcome of this legislative package could set a precedent for other states considering similar drone regulation initiatives, and the balance between state and federal authority in this area remains a key consideration as Congress continues to refine its own drone-related laws.