HB 1611
In CommitteeHouse
Unmanned aircrafts/foreign
Prohibiting the purchase of small unmanned aircrafts manufactured or assembled by a covered foreign entity.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill bans Washington state and local agencies—including police—from buying, funding, or using small drones (under 55 pounds) made by companies based in or controlled by China or Russia, or linked to those governments. It also prohibits using any state or local money for such drones and bans their operation after July 1, 2026.
- Bars state and local agencies—including law enforcement—from purchasing or acquiring small drones (under 55 pounds) made or assembled by certain foreign companies.
- Prohibits use of state or local funds—including contracts, grants, or other funding—for drones made by covered foreign entities.
- Bars public agencies from operating such drones starting July 1, 2026.
- Defines 'covered foreign entity' to include companies based in or controlled by the governments of China or Russia, or those listed on U.S. federal screening lists (e.g., Commerce Department’s Entity List).
- Defines 'small unmanned aircraft system' as a drone weighing less than 55 pounds, operated without direct human control.
Who is affected
- State and local government agencies (including law enforcement) — State and local government agencies—including police departments—that use drones for surveillance, search-and-rescue, or other operations—may no longer buy, fund, or operate drones made by certain foreign companies.
- Public entity drone operators — Public entities (like cities, counties, and state departments) that currently use drones made by companies based in China or Russia, or linked to those governments, will need to stop using them after July 1, 2026.
- Drone manufacturers and suppliers (specifically those linked to China or Russia) — Manufacturers and suppliers of drones based in China or Russia—or otherwise tied to those governments—will be barred from selling new drones to Washington state or local agencies.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
Reduces risk that sensitive data (e.g., geospatial imagery, infrastructure maps, personal identifiers) collected by public agencies via drones could be transmitted to or stored on servers controlled by adversarial foreign governments (China or Russia), thereby protecting state and local security interests.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 1(2), Sec. 1(3)Mitigates potential for foreign-linked drone manufacturers to embed surveillance capabilities or backdoor access that could enable mass surveillance or data harvesting of Washington residents, reinforcing privacy protections against foreign state actors.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(b)(ii)-(iii)Aligns Washington’s drone procurement with federal security standards (e.g., DoD and CISA guidance restricting Chinese-made drones), reducing risk of federal grant ineligibility or loss of interoperability with federal law enforcement assets.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(b)(i)May incentivize public agencies to shift toward U.S.-based drone manufacturers or suppliers, potentially supporting domestic industry and high-skill jobs in Washington state over time.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(3)Provides clear statutory guidance to local governments on drone procurement, reducing ambiguity and legal risk for agencies seeking to comply with federal security recommendations.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(c)
Potential Concerns (5)
Agencies—including law enforcement—may lose access to affordable, capable drone platforms currently used for time-sensitive operations like search-and-rescue, disaster response, and crime scene mapping, potentially delaying or compromising public safety outcomes.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 1(3)Local governments and public agencies may face unplanned capital costs to replace existing drones made by covered foreign entities (e.g., DJI, ZTE, or other Chinese/Russian-linked manufacturers), straining already-tight budgets—especially for smaller jurisdictions with limited procurement flexibility.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 1(3)Small drone operators and local vendors that rely on affordable commercial drones (many of which are DJI-made) may face operational disruption or increased costs in serving public agencies, potentially reducing local contracting opportunities.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)-(d)The broad definition of “control by” foreign governments—without clear bright-line tests—could inadvertently bar drones made by foreign-owned firms with U.S. operations or minority foreign shareholders, creating compliance uncertainty for suppliers and public buyers.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(b)(iii)The reliance on U.S. federal screening lists (e.g., Commerce Department Entity List) creates dependency on evolving federal policy and may lead to inconsistent or retroactive application if federal lists change post-enactment.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1(4)(b)(i)
Who Is Most Affected
Law enforcement agencies may benefit from reduced foreign surveillance risk but face budgetary strain replacing functional drones—especially smaller departments lacking bulk-purchasing power.
Public safety agencies (fire, EMS, emergency management) relying on drones for search-and-rescue or wildfire monitoring may face reduced operational capacity or higher costs, potentially harming response times.
U.S.-based drone manufacturers (e.g., Skydio, DroneWorks) may gain new public-sector contracts, while foreign-linked suppliers (e.g., DJI, Autel) may lose a key U.S. market—shifting supply chains but not necessarily creating net new jobs.
Local governments (cities, counties, ports, universities) may face unplanned capital outlays to replace drones, disproportionately impacting rural or low-revenue jurisdictions with fewer procurement alternatives.
Residents in rural or mountainous areas may experience reduced access to emergency drone services (e.g., search-and-rescue, fire assessment), while all residents benefit from stronger data sovereignty protections against foreign intelligence collection.