The recent wave of drone reports in New Jersey, which has spread across the country, feels all too familiar. This phenomenon, along with the media storm it has stirred—complete with memes and conspiracy theories about these “mystery drones”—mirrors the UFO or unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) craze that has captured congressional focus and led to new laws in recent years.

In some respects, this represents progress. The fact that we now recognize these sightings as drones, rather than UAPs, is a testament to years of educational efforts and increased transparency from the U.S. Department of Defense. While drone sightings still raise concerns, we can thankfully address them now without the added complication of UFO-related conspiracy theories.

Yet, our reactions continue to be somewhat irrational.

Supporting Science Journalism

If you appreciate this discussion, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. With your subscription, you help secure the future of influential stories that explore the discoveries and ideas shaping our present.

A New Jersey state assemblyman recently accused federal officials on CNN of deceiving the public about the drone issue. The president-elect has even suggested we should “shoot them down!!!”—an idea that is not only impractical but potentially hazardous. Moreover, proposals to allocate resources to chase down wild theories about advanced technologies from Iran or extraterrestrial origins are equally wasteful. Memories of legislation restricting such actions over U.S. airspace, prompted by incidents like the Chinese balloon saga, seem to have faded, disregarding the obvious safety risks.

It’s important to clarify a few things about these drone sightings. Many are simply misidentified manned aircraft or satellites, like those from Starlink. The genuine drone sightings split into two categories: those in restricted airspace, such as near airports or military bases, and those in permissible airspace. Most reported sightings are of the latter type and are not deemed an immediate threat to national security or aviation safety, though they do annoy the public.

A commonly overlooked fact is that these drones are equipped with lights. These lights, which I often had to explain in my previous role at the Pentagon addressing UAP sightings, are there for collision avoidance—a safety feature. Flying drones with lights ensures they are visible; if secrecy were the goal, operators would simply turn off these lights. The FAA’s recent rule change allowing night flights for drones also likely contributes to the increase in sightings. Despite this, the public and some congressional members still react with alarm when they mistake other aircraft for drones.

Meanwhile, unfounded claims persist on social media and among government officials that suggest drone technologies surpass U.S. capabilities, like recent allegations of drones coming from an Iranian mothership with extensive battery life. These claims lack evidence of continuous tracking from Iran to U.S. shores. A more plausible explanation is that these drones are launched by local operators.

Yet, that doesn’t mean all drone activities are benign.

Several theories might explain the presence of drones in legal airspace. They could be operated by academics, professionals, or hobbyists experimenting with new technologies. The internet, particularly platforms like YouTube, is rife with drone footage from around the world. Whether for photography, high-resolution environmental monitoring, or commercial purposes, drone use in urban and legal airspace is becoming increasingly common as the technology evolves for uses such as delivery, remote sensing, and communications.

More concerning is the possibility of operators testing the boundaries of legal drone use or, in military terms, preparing for potential conflicts. Whether these operators are foreign or domestic antagonists, they might use commercial drones to gauge public and government reactions. This information could be invaluable for planning attacks, smuggling drugs, or other illicit activities.

Some might even deploy drones specifically to create panic or hysteria, potentially for personal gain, like selling anti-drone solutions, or for publicity stunts akin to another History Channel alien series.

As with the UAP issue, there is limited evidence to either confirm or dismiss these theories. Not all drones can be explained the same way, complicating the national security task of distinguishing between innocuous and potentially harmful incidents. In light of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the last thing we need is to be blindsided by a technical or intelligence surprise.

Drones found in restricted airspace generally have clearer intentions, ranging from benign to malicious, but always involve accessing areas normally off-limits. Whether observing military movements, commercial flights, or other sensitive operations, identified drones and balloons can pose serious security and flight safety risks. A simple drone getting sucked into a jet engine could be catastrophic.

The ongoing expansion of drone applications in commercial, recreational, scientific, and military fields is undeniably reshaping our environment. Our laws and regulations have fostered a space where drones can legally operate, so their presence in the skies should not be surprising. Yet, here we are again, faced with outlandish claims and public cries for transparency, misguided accusations of deception, and legislative demands for more control over a mysterious skyward phenomenon, rather than pursuing a rational, scientific investigation. Does this sound familiar?

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.