The CEO of leading counter-drone technology firm Fortem Technologies is sounding the alarm over what he describes as significant shortfalls in the United States' ability to defend against unmanned aerial system (UAS) threats — and the concern extends well beyond protecting sports stadiums.
Counter-UAS Protections Fall Short, Says Fortem Chief
With major international events like the FIFA World Cup on the horizon, scrutiny around drone security at high-profile venues has intensified. But according to Fortem Technologies' chief executive, the scope of the problem is far larger than any single stadium or sporting event. The gaps in America's counter-UAS infrastructure reportedly span critical infrastructure, public spaces, and beyond.
Fortem Technologies is a Utah-based company specializing in radar-based drone detection and autonomous intercept systems. Their DroneHunter platform — a net-firing interceptor drone — has been deployed in various security contexts, making the company's leadership a notable voice in the counter-UAS policy conversation.
Why Counter-UAS Is a Growing National Security Priority
The threat landscape for unmanned aerial vehicles has evolved dramatically in recent years. Commercially available drones have become more capable, more affordable, and harder to detect, creating new challenges for security planners at every level of government.
Several factors are driving the urgency around counter-UAS policy in the U.S.:
- Proliferation of consumer and commercial drones means potential bad actors have easy access to capable platforms
- Critical infrastructure — including power grids, pipelines, and transportation hubs — remains vulnerable to aerial reconnaissance or attack
- Large public events like the FIFA World Cup, the Super Bowl, and political gatherings present high-value, high-visibility targets
- Regulatory and legal complexity limits which agencies can lawfully detect, track, and interdict drones in U.S. airspace
The Legal Hurdles Complicating U.S. Drone Defense
One of the most significant obstacles to effective counter-UAS deployment in the United States is legal authority. Currently, only a handful of federal agencies — primarily the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security — are explicitly authorized to take action against threatening drones. Local law enforcement and private security operators generally lack that authority, creating coverage gaps at the very locations that may need protection most.
This jurisdictional patchwork has been a persistent concern among industry experts and policymakers alike. Legislation to expand counter-UAS authority has been debated in Congress, but comprehensive reform has been slow to materialize.
Fortem's Role in the Counter-Drone Ecosystem
Fortem Technologies positions itself at the intersection of detection and interdiction. Their radar systems are designed to identify rogue drones at range, while the DroneHunter autonomous interceptor can deploy to neutralize threats without requiring a human pilot in the loop. This kind of layered, automated approach is increasingly seen as necessary given the speed at which drone threats can emerge and escalate.
The company's concerns about infrastructure gaps are part of a broader industry push to accelerate both policy reform and technology adoption ahead of marquee events that will draw global attention — and potential adversarial interest — to U.S. soil.
What This Means for the Drone Community
For legitimate drone operators — hobbyists, commercial pilots, and filmmakers alike — the push for expanded counter-UAS authority carries real implications. Broader interdiction powers and more expansive no-fly enforcement could affect where and how recreational and professional pilots operate, particularly near large events or infrastructure corridors.
The conversation around counter-UAS is ultimately a balancing act: hardening defenses against genuine threats while preserving the airspace access that makes the drone industry viable. As voices like Fortem's CEO continue to press for stronger protections, the policy debate is likely to intensify heading into 2026 and the FIFA World Cup.