News Organizations Challenge FAA Drone Rules That Would End Urban Journalism

Photo credit: DJI

Amazon Deals: Forget the DJI Mini 4K. Get a Skyrover X1 for $644!

News organizations have formally challenged the FAA’s proposed drone regulations before the October 6 comment deadline, warning that the rules would effectively ban aerial journalism in America’s cities and raise serious First Amendment concerns about government restrictions on newsgathering.

The News Media Coalition’s challenge comes as press freedom advocates fight on multiple fronts against drone restrictions that increasingly target journalism while allowing government surveillance to flourish unchecked.

News Media Coalition Challenges Urban Journalism Ban

The proposed Part 108 regulations would restrict newsgathering drone operations to Category 3 population density areas only—effectively banning BVLOS journalism in major metropolitan areas, shopping centers, and multifamily housing, according to the News Media Coalition, which includes the News/Media Alliance.

“Newsgathering operations can be conducted only in areas with moderate Category 3 population density,” the coalition stated in its comments. “That would exclude major metropolitan areas, shopping centers and multifamily housing.” In practical terms, newsrooms could cover suburban HOA meetings but not downtown protests, urban natural disasters, or breaking news where it actually happens.

The FAA released its proposed Part 108 rules in August 2025, with the 60-day comment period closing October 6. While the provisions don’t mention newsgathering specifically, they lump journalism into the “aerial surveying” category alongside commercial photography and videography.

Restrictions That Kill Breaking News Coverage

Beyond geographic limits, the proposed rules would impose operational restrictions fundamentally incompatible with journalism:

Fleet caps: Newsrooms limited to 25 “active” BVLOS drones maximum, including leased aircraft and subcontractors. Major news organizations operating across multiple markets would hit this ceiling immediately.

Weight limits: 110-pound maximum drone weight (up from Part 107’s 55 pounds), though still requiring lighting and Remote ID broadcast.

Site-specific approvals: Each “area of operations” requires FAA approval with specific geographic coordinates. “The FAA’s pre-operations approval processes and requirements must account for breaking news,” the coalition argued, noting that journalism can’t wait days or weeks for site-by-site authorization.

Personnel requirements: Operations supervisor and flight coordinator positions required (though not requiring pilot certificates), both subject to TSA background checks and watchlist screening.

Part of a Broader Attack on Press Freedom

The Part 108 restrictions arrive amid escalating government efforts to ground journalism drones while expanding official surveillance capabilities. Last week, DroneXL covered the National Press Photographers Association’s condemnation of the massive Chicago temporary flight restriction—the largest drone ban ever imposed in the United States at 935 square miles.

“This unprecedented flight restriction prevents journalists from using drones to document matters of clear public concern,” NPPA General Counsel Mickey H. Osterreicher stated October 5. “When the government imposes such a broad and prolonged ban on newsgathering, it risks turning ‘security’ into a pretext for suppressing press freedom.”

The Chicago TFR echoes the 2014 Ferguson, Missouri no-fly zone during Michael Brown protests. Audio recordings obtained by the Associated Press later revealed the truth: “They finally admitted it really was to keep the media out,” an FAA manager said of police requests to restrict airspace. Police “did not care if you ran commercial traffic through this TFR all day long. They didn’t want media in there.”

Texas Case Shows Courts Split on Drone Journalism Rights

The constitutional battle over drone journalism has already reached federal courts with mixed results. In NPPA v. McCraw, journalists challenged Texas’s Chapter 423 drone privacy law after multiple incidents where police threatened reporters with arrest for using drones to cover breaking news.

In 2022, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman struck down the Texas law, ruling it violated the First Amendment. Judge Pitman explicitly stated that “the process of capturing photographs and videos using a drone finds just as much protection in the First Amendment as the images themselves do.”

But the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision in 2023, rejecting the notion that journalists have a “sweeping First Amendment right to use unmanned aerial drones to film private individuals and property without their consent.” The Supreme Court denied review in 2024, leaving the restrictive Texas law in effect.

Photojournalist Billy Calzada testified that after flying his drone near an apartment fire in San Marcos, Texas, a police officer told him he would be violating the law if he published the images. The chilling effect was immediate—newspapers across Texas stopped drone operations out of fear of prosecution.

Coalition Demands Three Critical Changes

The News Media Coalition urges the FAA to:

1. Permit newsgathering in urban areas: Allow journalism BVLOS operations in population densities greater than Category 3. Breaking news happens in cities, not just suburbs.

2. Reconsider the 25-drone fleet cap: The arbitrary limit would cripple national news organizations operating across multiple markets and prevent scalability for breaking news coverage.

3. Create breaking news pathways: Pre-approval processes must accommodate the unpredictable nature of journalism. A tornado, mass shooting, or civil unrest can’t wait for FAA site authorization.

Pattern of Suppressing Aerial Newsgathering

The convergence of state laws, temporary flight restrictions, and now federal regulations reveals a troubling pattern: government at all levels increasingly restricting press access to aerial perspectives while maintaining—and expanding—official surveillance capabilities.

Texas law enforcement can ground journalists covering fires and disasters. Federal agencies can impose massive drone bans during controversial operations while flying their own surveillance aircraft. And now the FAA proposes regulations that would codify the end of urban drone journalism.

“Such overbroad bans have too often served as pretexts to prevent journalists from reporting on government activity,” Osterreicher warned in his Chicago statement. “Any such restriction must be narrowly tailored to legitimate security needs—not used as a blanket prohibition on newsgathering.”

The stakes extend beyond journalism logistics. Aerial perspectives have become essential for documenting protests, natural disasters, industrial accidents, and government operations. When only official drones can document controversial events, the public loses an independent check on power.

DroneXL’s Take

The Part 108 journalism restrictions aren’t just regulatory overreach—they’re a direct assault on the public’s right to know. The FAA is proposing to ban news drones from the exact places where journalism matters most: cities where protests happen, disasters strike, and government power is exercised.

The pattern is unmistakable. Texas courts said drone journalism isn’t protected speech. Chicago’s TFR showed government will use “security” to ground the press while flying surveillance drones overhead. Now Part 108 would make urban journalism bans permanent federal policy.

This isn’t about safety—if it were, the rules wouldn’t carve out exceptions for everyone except journalists. Package delivery gets 100 drones flying in dense areas. Agriculture gets 25. But breaking news in major cities? Banned.

The Ferguson precedent should haunt every regulator touching these rules. When FAA audio revealed police explicitly wanted no-fly zones to “keep media out,” the White House admitted it was wrong. Yet here we are again, with even broader restrictions and even weaker justifications.

DroneXL has consistently covered how drones democratize aerial perspectives that were once the exclusive domain of governments and wealthy organizations. These restrictions would reverse that democratization, ensuring only official eyes can document controversial government operations from the sky.

The final Part 108 rule is expected in the first half of 2026. Between now and then, the FAA must answer a simple question: Does the First Amendment protect the tools journalists use to gather news, or can government systematically ban those tools whenever the resulting coverage might prove inconvenient?

What do you think about proposed restrictions on journalism drones? Share your thoughts in the comments below.