H.R. 9232

H.R. 9232: To grant authority to use counter-unmanned aircraft system technologies to private owners of critical infrastructure facilities, and for other purposes.

Introduced Matt Van Epps (R) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 9232 grants private owners of critical infrastructure facilities the authority to use technologies designed to counter unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), commonly known as drones. This bill aims to enhance the security of vital infrastructure by allowing these private entities to protect themselves against potential threats posed by unauthorized drones.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 9232 have praised the bill for empowering private owners of critical infrastructure to better safeguard their facilities from drone-related threats. They argue that the legislation is a necessary step in adapting to evolving security challenges and ensuring that private entities can effectively respond to potential risks.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 9232 have raised concerns about the implications of allowing private owners to use counter-drone technologies. They argue that this could lead to misuse or overreach, potentially infringing on privacy rights and public safety. There are fears that without strict regulations, the deployment of such technologies could result in unintended consequences, including harm to innocent bystanders.

Conflict of Interest Analysis Deep Analysis
2/10
Risk Level
Low
Total Donations
$0
PAC Percentage
0%
Policy Area
Transportation and Public Works

The analysis of H.R. 9232, sponsored by Matt Van Epps, reveals no direct industry overlaps between the bill's subject matter and the sponsor's top donor industries. The bill focuses on granting authority for counter-unmanned aircraft system technologies, which does not appear to directly benefit any specific donor industries. However, there is notable lobbying activity in this policy area, with significant contributions from Monroe Energy, LLC ($10,000), Upstate Niagara Cooperative, Inc. ($10,000), and Agri-Mark, Inc. ($10,000). Despite these contributions, the absence of direct industry connections suggests a low potential for conflicts of interest. Voters should be aware that while lobbying exists, it does not indicate a direct financial incentive tied to the bill's provisions.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

Organizations that lobbied on issues related to this bill's policy area.

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
AMERICAN SUBCONTRACTOR ASSOCIATION OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC $30,000
AMERICAN COUNCIL OF INDEPENDENT LABORATORIES OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC $20,000
FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE OF THE MID ATLANTIC REGION OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC $15,000
STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 420 OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC $12,000
MONROE ENERGY, LLC OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC $10,000
UPSTATE NIAGARA COOPERATIVE, INC. OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC $10,000
AGRI-MARK, INC OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC $10,000
FRIENDS OF FATHER JUDGE HIGH SCHOOL, INC. OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC $6,000
ARSENAL ASSOCIATES OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC undisclosed
LABOR & ENERGY ALLIANCE OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC undisclosed
BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS MIDDLE TENNESSEE OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC undisclosed
BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS INDEPENDENCE REGION OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC undisclosed
EKLUTNA, INC EKLUTNA, INC. undisclosed
CARPENTERS' COMPANY OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC undisclosed
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION - PENN-DEL-JERSEY CHAPTER OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC undisclosed

Source: Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) filings, 2026

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Matt Van Epps, ranked by total contributions.

Health Professionals $120,000,000
Individuals: $120,000,000 PACs: $0
Retired $37,500,000
Individuals: $37,500,000 PACs: $0

Source: OpenSecrets.org (Center for Responsive Politics)

TheBillRoom is free and independent. No ads, no subscriptions, no political funding. If this analysis was useful, reader support keeps it running.
Support Us