Flight of Uncertainty: Lessons from 2024 drone sightings

Delve into New Jersey's late 2024 drone sightings, uncovering the role of false information, public fear, and policy gaps.

Summary

In late November and December 2024, New Jersey became the epicenter of widespread drone sightings and related activities, sparking significant public confusion and concern. This confusion stemmed from a combination of factors: the proliferation of unverified reports, the spread of sensational claims by low-credibility media outlets, more reports in response to increased awareness (fewer than 2% of reports were credible enough to warrant investigation), speculative claims by public figures, and communication from authorities.

The interplay between legitimate drone activities, mistaken identities of manned aircraft, and conspiracy theories fueled uncertainty and fear among residents. Concern about drones is not confined to the U.S., as similar sightings near military bases in the U.K. and Germany illustrate. Responses in these locations highlight the inadequacy of current legal frameworks for dealing with drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).

With few restrictions on a device that has become one of the more versatile weapons of war, our existing legal frameworks and threat assessments are woefully inadequate for a future with the widespread availability of drones.

In the past, the cost of a drone was prohibitive. This is no longer the case. With the proliferation of inexpensive equipment capable of developing biological weapons, our assumptions about risks and nonproliferation of biological weapons have changed. Similarly, our assumptions related to drones must change.

As we saw during Hurricane Helene, the drone sighting response was also plagued by careless commentary from high-profile figures. These statements misled, scared, and frustrated the public. The consequences during Hurricane Helene were delays in aid delivery, threats against first responders, and people being misinformed about the aid they were entitled to.

Summary of factors influencing public discussion about drone sightings:

• False and Misleading Information from Low-Credibility Sources: The spread of unverified reports and conspiracy theories by questionable media outlets and influential public figures contributed to public confusion and fear. The most visible sources of false or misleading information came after multiple authoritative sources communicated findings. Highly influential figures who failed to deliver accurate information to listeners and readers were key to public confusion. Individuals who promoted sensational claims were largely rewarded for their actions through increased engagement and coverage in media.

• A Multitude of Misidentification: Many reported drone sightings were later identified as misidentified commercial flights, helicopters, or optical artifacts. This is not the first major incident where the public has misidentified commercial airplanes as potentially threatening UAVs.

• Official Responses and Public Reassurance: Federal and state authorities consistently communicated that there was no imminent threat, emphasizing ongoing investigations and the need for accurate reporting. From the first address, local law enforcement communicated clearly and reminded the public not to believe everything they read online.

  Ultimately, the failure to reassure the public came not from a lack of communication but from a lack of substance. If the government says it doesn’t know what is occurring with the drones, then it cannot also credibly reassure people that there is no threat without further information.

• Federal Government Action: No-fly zones and proposed legislative measures were part of the government's efforts to manage airspace security and address public concerns, even without confirmed threats. In the case of the President and President-Elect, the no-fly zones were not necessarily related to the drones. Similar zones had been established around Mar-a-Lago in May 2024, but this was not communicated to the public. Those who did not know that a no-fly zone might have been established even without drone sightings might have interpreted this action as proof of the federal government's dishonesty. With justifiable mistrust, the government will need to be clearer. In the case of these drones, pointing out that a foreign adversary is not likely to put bright flashing lights on their drones is the type of context that might go a long way. That said, it would not matter what is communicated so long as those entrusted to provide public information ignore their responsibility to ensure their words are accurate.

• Public Behavior and Safety Concerns: Incidents like laser-pointing at aircraft and the spread of AI-generated misinformation demonstrated the potential for public actions to escalate safety risks during periods of uncertainty. Fake videos spread widely on social media, and multiple prominent figures either encouraged or suggested downing the UAVs with a firearm. To do so could constitute a federal crime.

Timeline