The FAA has rescinded NOTAM FDC 6/4375, the January rule that barred drone pilots from flying within 3,000 feet laterally and 1,000 feet vertically of Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and Department of Homeland Security vehicles — and threatened criminal prosecution for violations. The replacement advisory tells pilots to “exercise caution” near federal assets. No specific distances, no criminal penalties.
The reversal came four days after the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a motion in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit asking for the DHS ground vehicle restrictions to be stayed. The RCFP had sued the FAA in March on behalf of Minnesota photojournalist Rob Levine, whose drones were grounded during immigration protests in Minneapolis. The original NOTAM, the lawsuit argued, created a chilling effect on lawful newsgathering.
The FAA framed the change as a routine clarification based on user feedback, not a legal retreat. Its spokesman said the revised NOTAM “removes the flight prohibition and instead advises pilots to use caution near protected operations while enabling federal security partners to assess and respond to potential threats.” The agency declined to connect the timing to the ongoing litigation.
What the New Advisory Actually Says
The replacement NOTAM drops the hard standoff distances and the explicit criminal prosecution language. What remains is a warning that federal agencies “may take action that results in the interference, disruption, seizure, damaging, or destruction of unmanned aircraft deemed to pose a credible safety or security threat.” In other words, the government reserves the right to destroy your drone — it just won’t prosecute you for flying near a federal vehicle.
For working journalists, the practical effect is significant. The original NOTAM effectively grounded news drones at any protest, immigration enforcement action, or federal operation where DHS or DoD vehicles were present — a broad and poorly defined category.
The Lawsuit Continues
RCFP attorney Grayson Clary called the reversal an “egregious overreach” that should never have been implemented, and confirmed the lawsuit will proceed. The goal is a court ruling that the original NOTAM was unlawful — not just an acknowledgment that the FAA walked it back under pressure. Without that ruling, the same restriction could be reimposed under different framing.
That’s the part worth watching. The FAA has shown it will issue broad airspace restrictions around federal operations when political conditions push in that direction. A D.C. Circuit ruling on the First Amendment limits of that authority would set a durable precedent. A quiet withdrawal without judicial review leaves the question open.
