Drones Over New Jersey: Crisis, Speculation, and Governmental Opportunity
What to believe when claims culminate in chaos
Throughout history, governments have leveraged crises—be they natural disasters, wars, or unexplained phenomena—to shape public policy and exert control. From the Roman Empire to the modern era, the strategy typically involves three stages: testing public reactions, using fear to justify rapid regulatory changes, and convincing citizens to relinquish freedoms for the sake of security. The recent wave of drone sightings over New Jersey presents a modern example of this dynamic, sparking questions about governmental motives and the potential erosion of civil liberties.
I recently watched a video by Chase Hughes that reminded me of these factors when navigating the mazework of claims flying around right now (excuse the pun) about the hundreds of sightings of drones nationally. I’ll post that below, noting that this mention is not an endorsement of any claim.
The Mysterious Drones Over New Jersey
Since November 2024, residents of New Jersey and neighboring states have reported mysterious drones hovering over various locations. These sightings have spanned areas such as Morris County, La Guardia Airport, and Ocean County, with reports detailing formations of drones flying in synchronized patterns. Despite investigations by federal agencies like the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), their origins remain unknown.
Here’s the video by Simon Peg’s doppelganger, Chase Hughes to iterate these and following points.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has addressed public concerns, assuring that “there’s no question people are seeing drones,” but stating that investigations have found no evidence of malicious activity or foreign involvement. However, the lack of definitive answers has left room for speculation, ranging from theories about corporate testing of drone technologies to claims that a search for nuclear or biological fallout is underway to suspicions of surveillance operations by foreign adversaries—or even the U.S. government itself.
This has all come amid demands by a variety of people and groups calling for them to be shot down. Whatever we wind up doing, the current climate of ambiguity has historically been fertile ground for governments to exploit crises for political and regulatory gains. The drones, whether ultimately harmless or not, have already sparked widespread anxiety, creating an environment in which extraordinary measures may seem justified.
Historical Precedents of Governmental Crisis Management
The use of crises to shape public policy is far from new. The Roman Empire mastered this tactic, often exaggerating threats from external enemies to consolidate power. This strategy allowed emperors to maintain control while appearing to act in the public’s interest.
In more recent history, examples abound. During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, a decision that faced fierce criticism for undermining civil liberties. Similarly, the 20th century saw the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, justified by fears of espionage, despite the lack of evidence supporting such claims.
The aftermath of the September 11 attacks offers one of the most striking modern examples. The USA PATRIOT Act was enacted swiftly, granting the government unprecedented surveillance powers in the name of counterterrorism. The moment the government granted itself these powers marks the very last time we have ever known a surveillance-free state.
While many hailed the act as a necessary step for national security, critics warned that it marked a dangerous expansion of governmental authority, eroding privacy rights in the process. The latter were certainly more right than the prior.
In each of these cases, the public’s fear and uncertainty provided the perfect means for governments to implement measures that might otherwise have faced resistance. The drones over New Jersey, though not a crisis of the same magnitude, could follow a similar pattern if public anxiety continues to grow.
The Three-Tiered Approach to Crises
The government’s response to the New Jersey drones can be analyzed through the lens of the historical three-tiered approach to crises:
Testing Public Reaction:
By allowing investigations to proceed publicly without immediate answers, officials can gauge the population’s tolerance for uncertainty. The government’s repeated assurances that the drones pose no threat may be an attempt to quell panic while observing how people react to the mystery.Using Fear to Justify Regulation:
The ambiguity surrounding the drones creates an opening for regulatory changes. Officials could propose stricter drone laws, increased funding for surveillance technology, or expanded powers for agencies like the FAA or DHS. While such measures might address legitimate safety concerns, they also risk overreach, infringing on civil liberties under the guise of public protection.Encouraging the Forfeiture of Freedoms:
If the drone sightings persist and public anxiety grows, citizens may become more willing to accept invasive measures in exchange for security. This could include increased drone surveillance, broader data collection, or military involvement in domestic airspace—all of which raise constitutional questions.
Drone Technology and Public Anxiety
Drones occupy a unique space in the public imagination, combining the fascination of advanced technology with the fear of surveillance and control. In the U.S., the use of drones has already been a contentious issue. Military drones, employed extensively in conflicts abroad, have faced criticism for their role in civilian casualties. Domestically, law enforcement agencies have increasingly adopted drones for surveillance, raising concerns about privacy and governmental overreach.
The New Jersey sightings amplify these concerns. Residents have described the drones as silent, numerous, and often operating in organized formations—characteristics that evoke images of surveillance programs or technological experiments. President-elect Donald Trump even suggested that the military should shoot the drones down if they pose a threat, reflecting the intensity of public concern.
Speculation and Distrust
The drone phenomenon has also exposed a deep well of public distrust in government institutions. Local officials have expressed frustration with federal agencies’ handling of the issue. Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie criticized DHS Secretary Mayorkas, accusing him of failing to provide clear answers. This dissatisfaction highlights the disconnect between governmental transparency and public expectations.
The Balance Between Security and Freedom
The New Jersey drones raise a critical question: how should governments balance public safety with the protection of civil liberties? On one hand, the potential risks associated with unidentified drones—whether espionage, terrorism, or accidents—warrant a proactive response. On the other hand, history demonstrates that crises often lead to the erosion of freedoms, with long-term consequences that outweigh the immediate threat.
Transparency is key to striking this balance. Federal agencies must communicate openly about their investigations, providing the public with clear and timely updates. Without transparency, even the most well-intentioned measures risk being perceived as power grabs.
Additionally, public oversight is essential. Civil liberties organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have long advocated for greater accountability in governmental responses to crises. Engaging such organizations in the conversation can help ensure that security measures remain proportional and respect constitutional rights.
While the ACLU has not weighed in on the sightings in public comment, the mysterious drone activities have prompted reactions from other public names and agencies. For example, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy acknowledged the sightings, noting that while they are "frustrating," they don't appear to pose a public safety concern.
Additionally, U.S. Reps. Chris Smith and Jeff Van Drew have called on the military to shoot down the drones, expressing concerns over potential threats.
Given the ACLU's focus on civil liberties, it's possible that the organization may monitor the situation, especially if government responses lead to increased surveillance or regulatory measures that could impact individual privacy rights.
A Modern Test Case
Wherever this is headed, the current situation now covering more states by the day represent a modern test case for governmental crisis management. While the drones themselves may ultimately prove benign, the public’s reaction—and the government’s response—offers valuable insights into the dynamics of fear, regulation, and liberty.
Pay attention, my friends. Wherever this leads, do not forget how we got there. The journey, as they say, is often more important than the destination.
Citations
https://apnews.com/article/fbi-drones-new-jersey-1bf2b36e8617d46da711dae602708be2?
https://apnews.com/article/fbi-drones-new-jersey-a978470fa3bb07ed3e98c5b7c18f0abb?