FarmSTAND, Animal Outlook, and We Animals warn proposed “no-fly zone” rule threatens First Amendment newsgathering and public accountability for industrial animal agriculture
Groups representing investigative, legal advocacy, and photojournalism efforts to fight factory farming have submitted formal comments to the Federal Aviation Administration opposing a proposed rule that could let large-scale factory farms and slaughterhouses obtain Unmanned Aircraft Flight Restrictions (UAFRs), effectively closing off the airspace above their facilities to drones.
The groups argue the proposed rule, FAA docket FAA-2026-4558, could hand the country’s biggest and most polluting agricultural operations a tool to block the drone photography and video that has repeatedly exposed animal cruelty, environmental violations, and consumer fraud in the food system, without any evidence that drones pose a safety or security risk to these facilities.
Aerial footage has documented flooded manure lagoons after Hurricane Florence, mass culling operations during avian flu and swine flu outbreaks, feedlots holding well over 100,000 cattle, and egg farms falsely marketed as “free-roaming.” In one case, aerial footage secured by Animal Outlook and We Animals helped win a class action settlement against an egg producer that misrepresented its hens’ living conditions.
“The industrial animal agriculture system relies on policies that restrict free speech and make transparency impossible,” said Kelsey Eberly, FarmSTAND Senior Staff Attorney. “Without the essential and constitutionally-protected work of drone photojournalists, we would lose critical information and context about how factory farms suck up precious land and water resources, pollute their surrounding communities, and deceive consumers about the conditions for animals in these facilities. Keeping the skies above massive feedlots and dairies open to responsible drone pilots is vital for holding these facilities accountable.”
“Drones are one of the only ways the public can see what’s actually happening behind the walls of industrial animal agriculture facilities,” says Ben Williamson, Executive Director, Animal Outlook. “Allowing factory farms to obtain UAFRs would not protect anyone’s safety. It would protect the industry’s ability to hide conditions that consumers, regulators, and journalists have every right to see.”
“Responsible drone journalism already operates under FAA rules without putting people, animals, or facilities at risk,” says Victoria de Martigny, photojournalist and Director of Visual Content at We Animals. “Further restrictions on newsgathering would not improve safety. They would limit independent reporting on industrial animal agriculture and make it harder for the public to understand an industry that already works very hard to keep itself hidden.”
The comments note that courts have consistently found a First Amendment right to film matters of public concern, and a constitutionally protected interest in using drones for that purpose and that the FAA’s own proposal acknowledges that restricting airspace over facilities like factory farms curtails First Amendment activity. The groups argue the rule, if finalized as the agency proposes, could let large facilities silence critical coverage while permitting neutral or favorable drone activity like mapping or research, raising serious First Amendment concerns.
FarmSTAND, Animal Outlook, and We Animals are urging the FAA not to develop special approval requirements or restrictions for drone use for the food and agriculture sector at all, and if it does, to explicitly exempt First Amendment newsgathering activity from any UAFR restrictions.
The full comments are available here and at Regulations.gov under Docket ID FAA-2026-4558.