The recent surge of unidentified drone sightings in the eastern US has created significant political, societal, and psychological impacts nationwide. People are experiencing heightened anxiety, stress, an erosion of trust in governmental institutions, and a proliferation of conspiracy theories about the origin and intent of the aircraft. Simply put, it is starting to freak people out. The federal government’s response has been devoid of explanations regarding these aircraft or their intentions, which has resulted in people adopting explanations that fit their mental models of how the world and our government currently work.

Whether the public’s view of these objects can be chalked up to hysteria or erroneous observations is, in many ways, irrelevant to the reality our elected and appointed leaders now face. Take, for example, the phenomenon of “the fear of crime.” For police leaders, actual crime numbers are irrelevant as it relates to the public’s trust and confidence in their ability to keep them safe. The public’s perception of crime is the reality a chief or sheriff faces. Similarly, the public’s perception about these aircraft, and the federal government’s apparent inability to deal with them, is rapidly becoming our collective reality. For many, what is happening confirms the poor opinion many people have of our national government. This will present substantive challenges for the incoming administration if not addressed quickly.

There are obvious questions about the nature and intent of these objects that most people think should be easily addressed by officials:

• Are they drones? Manned aircraft? Conventional drones? Air taxi-like aircraft?

• Are they of civilian or military origin?

• Why are so many flying over New Jersey communities and seemingly sensitive sites? Who’s behind them? Corporations? Our military? Another state actor?

• How can federal officials say there is nothing to worry about if they don’t know what they are?

• If the feds know what they are, why haven't they revealed that information?

• If the government has nothing to do with this, how can our military and civilian aviation systems, unparalleled in their expense and sophistication, not be up to the seemingly simple task of identifying and interdicting them?

In all likelihood, we’ll get the answers to these, and many more, questions soon. But people are no longer satisfied with the traditional government response of “trust us, they’re not a risk.” The public pressure regarding this phenomenon is rapidly becoming untenable for federal officials. They will either have to come clean with what they know or hurry up and figure it out.

While this is important, the interest in these “drones” as they gain prominence in the public discourse comes with increasingly tangible emotional and sociological impacts on Americans. Given the ongoing Congressional interest in unknown aerial phenomena (UAPs), unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and unknown anomalous phenomena (UAPs), this issue is certain to gain media traction and stimulate collective interest in this “yet-another-weird-thing” in our society.

The silver lining for policing in this mystery may very well be the lessons emerging from the government’s poor communication strategies. Police leaders should pay close attention to this dynamic as the issue evolves. It is rapidly becoming a practical lesson in how NOT to handle an issue that has such a high level of public interest and concern.

The lack of confidence in government over the unidentified drone sightings parallels the issue of episodic public lack of trust and confidence in the police in several significant ways. Both issues stem from similar dynamics, including perceived inaction, inadequate transparency, conflicting narratives, and a failure to address community concerns effectively.

To better understand this issue and the ramifications of official information voids in critical matters, it is important to examine the increasingly serious impacts it is having on people. The following are just a few of the more prominent ones:

Heightened Anxiety and Stress

The persistent presence of the mysterious drones has created significant unease among Americans. Reports describe drones of considerable size, sometimes numbering between 30 to 50, hovering over residential areas during nighttime hours. This has disrupted the daily lives of individuals, leading to an elevated sense of fear and vulnerability. The inability to identify the origin or intent of these drones exacerbates feelings of powerlessness.

Erosion of Trust in Governmental Institutions

The lack of definitive information and perceived inaction from authorities have contributed to growing mistrust in governmental institutions. Despite assurances from entities like the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI that there is no significant threat, the absence of concrete explanations has left residents feeling abandoned and skeptical of official narratives. This erosion of trust can lead to decreased civic engagement and challenges in implementing public policies, as citizens increasingly question the competence or intentions of their leaders.

Proliferation of Conspiracy Theories

In the absence of clear information, conspiracy theories are flourishing. Speculations range from foreign espionage to clandestine government operations, with some residents suspecting the drones are linked to foreign adversaries like Iran or China. The rapid spread of these theories, often amplified by social media, reflects a societal attempt to make sense of ambiguous situations. However, such conjectures can further destabilize community cohesion and amplify fears, leading to a sense of social fragmentation.

Community Polarization

The divergent beliefs regarding the nature and origin of the drone sightings can lead to polarization within communities. While some individuals advocate for aggressive measures, such as shooting down the drones, others call for restraint and further investigation. This schism can strain social relationships and hinder collective problem-solving efforts, as differing viewpoints clash without a foundation of mutual understanding or trust.

Impact on Drone Operators and Industry

The current situation could also affect legitimate drone operators and the burgeoning drone industry. Concerns over potential new restrictions, prompted by public anxiety and calls for stricter regulations, threaten to stifle innovation and economic growth within this sector. Responsible operators fear being unfairly targeted or restricted due to the actions of unidentified entities, leading to economic uncertainty and professional stress.

Perceived Inaction

In the case of the drone sightings, residents feel that government agencies are not acting decisively to identify or mitigate the situation. Despite investigations, there is a pervasive sense that authorities are either unable or unwilling to provide answers. Similarly, in policing, when high-profile incidents occur, such as excessive use of force or unsolved crimes, when information is not timely and adequate, the public often perceives police departments as slow to act. This perceived inaction creates a vacuum where frustration and distrust grow, leading to broader dissatisfaction with institutional responsiveness.

Lack of Transparency

The government’s lack of clear explanations regarding the drones — whether due to the complexity of the issue, national security concerns, or bureaucratic inefficiency—has fueled skepticism. This mirrors the public’s mistrust in police institutions when transparency is absent. For example, communities frequently demand full disclosure about police misconduct investigations or use-of-force incidents. When information is withheld or slowly released, it can appear as though agencies are hiding something, even if that is not the case. The result in both instances is a loss of trust and confidence in the organization’s integrity and accountability.

Conflicting Narratives and Misinformation

In the drone sightings, conflicting governmental officials’ speculation about the origin of the drones is as diverse as foreign espionage to claims of covert government operations. And these have gained prominence in media reporting and social media commentary. This confusion breeds conspiracy theories and social polarization. A similar dynamic occurs in policing when the public receives conflicting accounts of incidents involving officers. Differing narratives from police reports, eyewitness testimony, and media coverage can lead to widespread mistrust. In both situations, the absence of a clear, unified explanation allows misinformation to thrive, further eroding public confidence.

Failure to Address Community Concerns

The anxiety caused by unexplained drones highlights the importance of addressing community concerns quickly and directly. The lack of tangible engagement by government agencies has left residents feeling alienated, insulted, and ignored. Similarly, when police departments fail to engage meaningfully with communities — through forums, listening sessions, or proactive outreach — the public often feels disconnected and undervalued. This dynamic fosters an “us versus them” mentality, making it harder for institutions to build and maintain trust.

Institutional Competence and Accountability

Both the government’s response to the drones and policing failures often boil down to perceived issues of competence and accountability. Residents question whether the government is capable of solving the drone mystery and holding responsible parties accountable. Likewise, when police departments are seen as incapable of preventing crime or addressing misconduct within their ranks, the public questions their competence. The perception of weak accountability mechanisms in both scenarios exacerbates the distrust.

A Silver Lining?

While these sightings are having obvious, adverse impacts, they may also bring about some much-needed legislation. This should be focused on facilitating the ability of the police to deal with drone-related problems that are currently the sole responsibility of federal authorities. Perhaps this will also cause a Congressional re-examination of funding and training for the Department of Homeland Security or the military’s authority to deal with drone-related threats within US borders.

National security officials, police leaders, and officials responsible for large-scale public events like NFL games, have long been making the case that with the ability to weaponize drones they now represent a public safety threat. This threat is acute because of the void in legislation addressing it. Many experts believe it is only a matter of time before we witness some form of extremist attack using weaponized drones in America.

Military technologies and training to detect and safely incapacitate drones have been under development for years. Why can’t some of this be transferred to state and local policing? Low-cost drones capable of dropping items (like bombs) are available now via the Internet. Social media is full of footage of such drones being used in Ukraine, for instance, to fight Russian troops. Do we think extremists wishing to harm America aren’t aware of these and might use them to inspire their own attacks at large-scale public events?

As we grapple with this issue, policing should take advantage of this opportunity to develop the capacity for interdicting drones so their ability to protect their communities against future drone attacks is not contingent upon federal assistance. This should come in the form of enabling legislation, drone interdiction technology, and training.

Conclusion

The parallels between the public’s lack of confidence in government over drone sightings and their episodic distrust in policing underscore the universal importance of transparency, action, and community engagement. To enhance their relationship with the people they’re paid to protect, police leaders must prioritize comprehensive investigations to provide clear answers, clear and timely communication, and other proactive efforts to build and maintain trust and confidence. Without these measures, skepticism and alienation from the police will deepen, further weakening the relationship between the public and the institutions meant to serve them.