News
War-zone surveillance comes home as Predator drones fly loops over Arizona border towns
War zone surveillance comes home as Predator drones fly loops over Arizona border towns. Originally published by Arizona Mirror.
By Jerod MacDonald-Evoy · 2026-09-24T17:20:33.926Z
U.S. Army Spc. Alexander Scheets, left, and Spc. Kylie Chislow, right, assigned to Foxtrot Company, 1st Aviation Regiment, 1st Combat Aviation Brigade, part of Joint Task Force Southern Border, guides a MQ 1 Gray Eagle onto the airstrip at Fort Huachuca on May 14, 2025. The drone is part of the Trump administration's effort to seal the southern border. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Chase Murray An Army drone like those frequently flown in overseas warzones has been flying along Arizona’s southern border, doing loops around border towns, as part of a collaboration between the military and U.S. Department of Homeland Security that has privacy advocates concerned. Under Operation Ardent Vanguard https://www.northcom.mil/BorderSecurity/ , the military operation overseen by the U.S. Northern Command to assist DHS in “obtaining full operational control of the Southern border,” American soldiers have been deployed to the country’s southern border. The operation is the implementation of President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential actions/2025/01/securing our borders/ declaring a national emergency at the country’s southern border and granting the military a larger role in border enforcement https://www.brennancenter.org/our work/research reports/how turning border military zone evades congress and threatens rights . The Arizona Mirror found an aircraft https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=abc123&lat=31.696&lon= 110.957&zoom=9.9&showTrace=2026 09 18&trackLabels using a deregistered aircraft registration https://registry.faa.gov/AircraftInquiry/Search/NNumberResult?nNumberTxt=8568S flying along the state’s southern border, occasionally doing loops around border towns like San Luis and Nogales. A Freedom of Information Act request to the Federal Aviation Administration for records related to the deregistered aircraft registration number resulted in “no records found.” The aircraft is most likely an MQ 1, often referred to as a Predator drone, the same kind recently shot down by Iran https://www.jpost.com/middle east/iran news/article 908990 . While NORTHCOM would not confirm or provide details about the aircraft, citing “operational security,” the military touted the use of the aircraft https://www.dvidshub.net/image/9043112/mq 1 gray eagle takes flight support southern border mission along the southern border in May 2025 and included it in materials https://d1ldvf68ux039x.cloudfront.net/thumbs/frames/graphics/2608/43904/1000w q95.jpg about the operation itself. The drone is operated by the members of the 1st Combat Aviation Brigade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st Aviation Brigade United States and 1st Aviation Regiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st Aviation Regiment United States based out of Fort Huachuca https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort Huachuca . The units have been deployed to major wars and conflicts, including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The aircraft comes with a litany of high tech sensors and capabilities https://www.af.mil/about us/fact sheets/display/article/104469/mq 1b predator/ that privacy advocates worry could be used on American citizens. “It raises very serious concerns that technology like that is going to be turned inward on the United States,” Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union Speech, Privacy and Technology Project told the Mirror. “Even if it is on the border, there are many people who live in our border communities who deserve not to live under the government microscope just because their community happens to be near the border.” Neither NORTHCOM nor DHS responded to questions about which agency has ownership over any data, photos or video that is collected as part of the flights or what is being done to prevent incidental collection on U.S. persons https://fas.org/publication/us army collecting information/ . DHS itself owns and operates a fleet of the same unmanned aircraft https://www.404media.co/dhs plans to buy more predator style drones/ . That fleet sparked controversy last year when one was deployed over Los Angeles https://www.theguardian.com/us news/2025/jun/12/predator drone los angeles protests and in 2020, when one was flying over Minneapolis https://www.vice.com/en/article/customs and border protection predator drone minneapolis george floyd/ , in response to protests in those cities. DHS did not respond to questions about why it is relying on the Army’s Predator drones over their own fleet to conduct surveillance at the border. Operation Ardent Vanguard has been assisting the agency with a number of projects along Arizona and the country’s southern border. In posts on social media https://x.com/JointTFSB , Joint Task Force Southern Border has posted images of soldiers installing concertina wire https://x.com/JointTFSB/status/2102443616991932728?s=20 , deploying smaller drones https://x.com/JointTFSB/status/2101401072128405547?s=20 and finding illegal border crossers https://x.com/JointTFSB/status/2102066149743550535?s=20 . Military support at the border is not a new phenomenon https://www.foxnews.com/tech/pentagon mass surveillance balloons , with the military providing support at the border in some shape or form going back to President George W. Bush. However, Stanley said that the use of high end military surveillance equipment is new and given the rapid advances in technology adopted by the military, it raises questions of how it is being deployed. “Indiciations that that may be being brought home is disturbing, and there needs to be transparency about what may or may not be going on,” Stanley said, adding that transparency by government officials is the key first step. Since Trump retook office in 2025, he has rapidly expanded border enforcement and turned large swaths of the southern border into military zones. An internal audit found that the change in mission has cost the military $2.64 billion https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2026 07 13/gao border security mission funding 22258002.html , of which only 12% qualifies for reimbursement https://www.gao.gov/products/gao 26 108437 from DHS. Military contractors have also been spotted conducting surveillance flights https://azmirror.com/2026/08/13/military contractor aircraft surveil arizonas southern border for undisclosed mission/ along the state’s southern border that, according to records obtained by the Mirror https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28549519 airworthiness n334ca/ document/p23/a2826360 , are equipped with high end military surveillance equipment that can mimic cell phone towers in order to track mobile devices. It is unclear what technology is being used on the Predator drones or if they are armed. “The only limit to what the aircraft can carry is the weight and the current state of technology and the constitution,” Stanley said, noting that the technology of things like wide area airborne surveillance have taken great strides over the past ten years. “What we need, first of all, is transparency. What type of surveillance is it carrying out over American communities and is it proper? Does it comport with the Constitution? Does it comport with what the public wants the government to be doing?” The use of wide area airborne surveillance, or WAAS, is something that has been challenged and debated by the courts for years. In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/207/ that, when the Santa Clara Police Department flew in a private plane over Dante Carlo Ciraolo’s house and spotted marijuana plants in the backyard, it didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unlawful searches and did not require a search warrant. That same year, the court also ruled https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/227/ that the Environmental Protection Agency had not violated the Fourth Amendment when flying over a Dow Chemical facility to photograph it after the company had denied the agency access for an inspection. Both those cases established that certain “open areas” that are easily viewable from the air do not require a search warrant, but they date back to a time when high tech surveillance like WAAS didn’t exist. Other court rulings have deemed its use unconstitutional in different circumstances. The Fourth Circuit ruled https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol 135/leaders of a beautiful struggle v baltimore police department/ that use of a WAAS program by the Baltimore Police was unconstitutional because the vast amount of data collected constituted a search that violated the Fourth Amendment. But Stanley pointed out that all those cases stem from versions of the technology that is now likely outdated — and didn’t contemplate the military conducting the surveillance. “These aircraft can carry wide area surveillance and scoop up many dozens of square miles at once. They can also have what is called soda straw cameras that can focus very narrowly on a small area,” Stanley said. “It is possible that aerial surveillance is being done in cases where there is individualized suspicion of wrongdoing, but we have little reason for faith that the current government, which has been undisciplined and lawless in its approach to immigration enforcement, is actually following the rules of the constitution around the aerial surveillance of Americans.” While the drone belongs to the Army, the U.S. Air Force is reported to have conducted more than 50 intelligence gathering missions https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air force southern border intel flights 50/ along the border with high tech aircraft like the U 2 spy plane https://azmirror.com/2021/04/01/an air force spy plane just flew along the u s mexico border/ and other high tech spy planes https://www.airandspaceforces.com/us intelligence flights border mission rc 135/ . Stanley stressed that a number of guardrails should be in place when using high end surveillance technology. “Other safeguards would include limits on the purpose of this surveillance,” Stanley said. “Limits on its scope and duration and persistence over time. Limits on how long data is retained that is not legally evidentiary. Limits on the sharing and repurposing of the data for other uses.” The operation at the southern border has also touted the use of other new technologies. A post on social media https://x.com/USNorthernCmd/status/2095841796647731420?s=20 by the task force touted that it had destroyed “11 cartel drones” using a high energy laser weapon and another 300 drones using “kinetic and non kinetic systems” this year. SUPPORT https://azmirror.com/donate/?oa referrer=midstorybox