US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is significantly increasing its investment in surveillance technology, particularly focusing on human-portable drones. Federal contracting records indicate a strategic shift towards a distributed system for border enforcement, enabling real-time activity tracking. Concerns have been raised that this expanded network could extend its reach well beyond the immediate border regions.
Recent market research highlights CBP’s preference for lightweight, uncrewed aircraft over larger, centralized drone platforms. These smaller drones are designed for rapid deployment by small teams, robust operation in challenging environmental conditions, and direct relay of surveillance data to frontline units. Key requirements emphasize portability, quick setup, and seamless integration with existing border patrol equipment.
These specifications build upon previous inquiries, which consistently showed CBP prioritizing drones capable of detecting movement in remote areas, quickly providing agents with coordinates, and performing reliably in extreme heat, dust, and strong winds. Earlier requests also stressed the importance of integrating cameras, infrared sensors, and mapping software to assist agents in locating and intercepting individuals across diverse terrains like deserts, rivers, and coastal zones.
CBP previously focused on vertical-takeoff and -landing drones small enough for individual teams to carry and launch. Specific benchmarks were set for flight time, deployment speed, and performance in harsh environments. These systems were intended to do more than just observe; they were expected to actively guide operations by feeding live location data into the digital tools agents use for field coordination.
The latest updates further refine this approach, indicating that CBP is no longer just exploring drone capabilities but is actively perfecting their operational efficiency. The agency seeks drones that deploy quickly, operate for extended periods, and deliver actionable intelligence directly to human agents. According to the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting, CBP currently operates a fleet of approximately 500 uncrewed systems, solidifying their role as a routine component of border enforcement.
During a House Homeland Security Committee hearing in December, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem mentioned that DHS is investing “upwards to $1.5 billion” in drone and counter-drone technology. These “mitigation measures” are intended for federally secured special events, such as the 2026 FIFA World Cup, and through agreements allowing DHS to “partner with cities and states” for enhanced protection.
Despite the increased focus on small, unit-level drones, CBP is not abandoning larger aircraft, even after years of scrutiny regarding its use of military-grade systems.
Federal watchdogs have previously identified the agency’s Predator drone program as costly and poorly evaluated, lacking clear evidence of proportional enforcement benefits. Nevertheless, CBP announced plans this month to modify an existing contract to increase the purchasing limit for up to 11 MQ-9 uncrewed aircraft systems. Unlike short-range tactical drones, the MQ-9 can reportedly stay airborne for over 27 hours at altitudes nearing 50,000 feet, surveying vast areas with multi-sensor payloads.
This combination of high-endurance aircraft and short-range systems reflects a broader evolution in CBP’s surveillance strategy. The agency is also pursuing complementary platforms, including AI-enabled mobile surveillance trucks equipped with cameras, radar, and automated detection software. These trucks are designed for mobility rather than fixed positions, allowing them to be deployed in remote areas and operate autonomously, thereby extending monitoring capabilities beyond fixed towers and established patrol routes.
Former acting DHS secretary Chad Wolf, who served during the first Trump administration, outlined a similar rationale in May. He described “dock-based drone technology” as part of a wider effort to automate border monitoring. Wolf argued that fixed or semi-fixed launch points would enable rapid drone deployment when sensors detect suspicious activity, keeping aircraft ready so agents can confirm events without needing to assemble a launch team.
Agency planning documents support this approach, envisioning small drones as airborne complements to ground-based systems. They would fill coverage gaps when truck-mounted sensors or fixed installations lose visual contact. In such scenarios, drones launched from nearby sites could maintain tracking beyond line of sight, navigating over terrain, through vegetation, or along waterways, while relaying imagery and location data to the digital maps used for coordinating responses.
The outcome is a surveillance architecture designed for adaptability, integrating mobile ground sensors, aerial tracking, and automated detection into a unified framework. This system aims to reduce, rather than replace, the involvement of human operators.
CBP’s drone operations are not exclusively confined to border areas. Flight logs and public records indicate that the agency has repeatedly deployed uncrewed aircraft to support other federal missions. These include aerial monitoring during protests and assistance with interior immigration enforcement. This overlap has heightened concerns that tools developed for border control could quickly transition into domestic policing applications.
Human rights organizations contend that expanded aerial surveillance does not merely deter border crossings but fundamentally alters them. Studies on technology-driven border enforcement suggest that as sensors and aircraft become more prevalent, migrants are pushed into more remote and hazardous routes. This increases the risk of injury or death without necessarily reducing the overall number of attempted crossings.
