Drones can peer into secretive factory farms. A proposed FAA ban could make this illegal.

View this email in your browser   

👋  Did this email get forwarded to you? Sign up here to get Future Perfect in your inbox every Wednesday.

Future Perfect

Hey readers,

Kenny here.

 

In February, an animal rights group flew a drone over a farm in California that raises calves destined for dairies and cattle ranches. Double D Dairies, the company that owns the farm, is linked to a prominent milk brand that highlights its humane farming practices. But the drone documented a very different reality. 

 

In one part of the drone video, filmed by the group Direct Action Everywhere, employees can be seen kicking calves in the face. In another, they grind hot irons into calves’ skulls, apparently without anesthetics, causing some to thrash and collapse (this procedure is done to prevent horn growth). Many calves were confined in tiny crates.

 

The ranch fired one of the employees after the investigation was published in the Los Angeles Times. “Animal welfare and safety are incredibly important to us, and we have a zero-tolerance policy for any mistreatment,” the owner wrote to the LA Times over email. When Vox reached the owner for an interview, he declined to comment.

 

This sort of treatment of farmed animals, it turns out, is far from unusual. Many investigations into the milk and beef industries — along with other livestock sectors — have uncovered similar abuses.

 

But without drone footage, we probably wouldn’t know about many of them. Drones flown by animal advocates have also captured enormous hog manure pits overflowing during a hurricane, millions of egg-laying hens culled amidst a bird flu outbreak, and a large egg farm that falsely claimed to let its hens roam free when it didn’t.

 

Over the past decade, as drones have become more affordable and easier to operate, they have become an essential — and impactful — tool for exposing wrongdoing at the factory farms that collectively house billions of animals in the US. But a recently proposed rule by the Trump administration could cut off such drone-powered documentation, making the mere search for this type of animal cruelty illegal — and a huge, largely hidden industry all the more impenetrable. It could also take out eyes in the sky that add visibility into countless other massive industries and facilities across the US. 

 

The potential drone ban, briefly explained

 

There are more than 800,000 registered drones in the US, and whether people fly them for fun or for business, they have to follow some basic rules. They must keep them below 400 feet, for example, and avoid flying them near sensitive places like airports, military bases, and federal prisons.

 

But the types of facilities that are off-limits for unauthorized drone flight could soon balloon to also include a much broader range of places, such as data centers, banks, and wastewater facilities, along with farms and slaughterhouses. 

 

A decade ago, Congress directed the Federal Aviation Administration to develop a system in which businesses deemed vital to US economic and national security could request drone flight restrictions over their property. And in May, the FAA proposed a new rule to do just that. 

 

There are more than 800,000 registered drones in the US, and whether people fly them for fun or for business, they have to follow some basic rules. They must keep them below 400 feet, for example, and avoid flying them near sensitive places like airports, military bases, and federal prisons.

 

But the types of facilities that are off-limits for unauthorized drone flight could soon balloon to also include a much broader range of places, such as data centers, banks, and wastewater facilities, along with farms and slaughterhouses. 

 

A decade ago, Congress directed the Federal Aviation Administration to develop a system in which businesses deemed vital to US economic and national security could request drone flight restrictions over their property. And in May, the FAA proposed a new rule to do just that. 

 

But in its comments to the FAA lies another motivation from these industries: making it harder for activists to document what happens on farms.

 

“Activists have been deploying drones against animal agriculture, and against hog operations specifically, for well over a decade,” the National Pork Producers Council wrote in a comment to the FAA.

 

“Poultry operations, in particular, have been targeted by outside groups using drones to capture aerial footage for activist campaigns,” the North Carolina Poultry Federation wrote. 

 

“Ag-gag” 2.0

 

For decades, activists have gone undercover to work at farms and slaughterhouses and covertly film and expose animal cruelty on the ground. Their footage has given millions of Americans a peek into the US meat, milk, and egg industries and has occasionally led to criminal animal cruelty charges, boycotts, and legislative action. Eventually, the industry fought back.

 

In the 2010s, lawmakers allied with the meat industry proposed bills in around 25 states to make such investigations illegal, and several were passed into law. Critics called them “ag-gag” laws, describing how they gag activists and journalists from exposing animal cruelty and environmental pollution in the agricultural sector. And while a few were struck down in the courts as unconstitutional, several still stand. 

 

In the wake of this investigative crackdown, animal advocates increasingly turned to drones over the past decade to conduct their investigations. It didn’t take long for several heavily agricultural states — including Iowa, Texas, and Kentucky  — to restrict drone operators from flying over animal farms.

 

Drone operator José Elias, who works for SingleStone Media — a nonprofit that reports on how factory farms affect rural communities — told Vox that the FAA’s proposed rule “allows a pathway for factory farms to continue to operate under secrecy.”

 

The proposed rule also worries Ram Daya, a freelance photojournalist with the group We Animals who, for years, has flown drones over factory farms to capture their enormous scale and intensive confinement of animals. Drone investigations, he said, have helped to expose the vast gulf between “how [farms] portray themselves” — often as humane and sustainable — “versus how they actually operate.” 

 

He and others said this is part of a larger pattern by governments and industry to stifle farm investigations — a new iteration of “ag-gag” laws.  

 

Beyond factory farms, of course, this proposed regulation could hamper important insights into a huge number of other industries, businesses, and government-run facilities. An environmental journalist, for example, used a drone outfitted with a thermal camera earlier this year to reveal that Elon Musk’s xAI company was illegally using gas to power one of its data centers. 

 

The broad scope of the proposed rule has caught the attention of journalistic and pro-democracy groups, as well, who’ve argued in comments to the FAA that its rule could suppress newsgathering — and that the agency ought to better weigh First Amendment protections in its rulemaking.

 

“As drones have become an essential tool of modern journalism, restrictions on their use increasingly limit the public’s ability to receive information about newsworthy events,” the National Press Photographers Association wrote. “The FAA should therefore ensure that this rule protects against genuine security threats while preserving journalists’ ability to use drones as a principal means of documenting matters of public concern.”

 

The group wants the FAA to require drone restriction applicants to be able to demonstrate a specific threat and explain why existing laws are insufficient to deter it; give the public a meaningful opportunity to comment on drone restriction applications; and establish a process for journalists and others to challenge them, among other changes.  

 

Most Americans will never set foot inside a factory farm or slaughterhouse. What little we know about these places has often come from investigators willing to document them. If that work becomes harder, it becomes harder to know where our food comes from. That's good news for an industry that has long fought against public scrutiny. And bad news for the rest of us — and the billions of animals involved.

Kenny Torrella

Senior reporter, Future Perfect

Kenny Torrella

Senior reporter, Future Perfect

 
 

CAN'T STOP THINKING ABOUT...

with Bryan Walsh

 

Title: Senior editorial director
What I cover: AI, good news, innovation. I also podcast for The Gray Area.
Past life: Tokyo bureau chief for Time magazine
Favorite stories: "The forgotten success story of American teenagers," where I used my own experience as a teen in the 1990s to conclude being a teen in the 1990s wasn't all that great, a conclusion that would not have surprised me when I was a teen in the 1990s.

Since I recently switched from editing Future Perfect to a writing and podcasting role, I’ve found myself spending more time on the internet, looking for ideas. This past Sunday afternoon, I was lurking on X — because what better way is there to spend a summer weekend — when I came across this tweet from Dr. Ashish K. Jha:

This grabbed my attention, because not only is Jha an infectious disease expert, he was also the Covid coordinator for the Biden White House. 

The disputed origins of the Covid-19 virus — whether it evolved naturally or emerged from a lab leak in China — were back in the news last week after Dr. Anthony Fauci was called before a Senate committee to answer questions about the pandemic. Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment over a hundred times during the hearing, but he has publicly said in the past that the virus most likely jumped from animals to humans, a position backed by international authorities such as the World Health Organization. Jha’s statement, however, underscores the persistence of the lab leak theory. That’s especially notable coming from someone who doesn’t have an ax to grind against the medical mainstream and who likely would have been privy to inside information during his stint at the White House.

The truth is, we don’t know for sure and may never know. That’s different from arguing, as some experts have, that the answer simply doesn’t matter. It definitely does; I’d even say it’s the most important unanswered question of the 21st century — not just because of the seismic geopolitical ramifications that would result from discovering a pandemic that killed more than 20 million people and utterly changed the world for the worse was due to human error in China, but because it would also establish without a doubt the existential threat presented by our growing ability to manipulate viruses. 

There is a vast difference between hypothetical risks and demonstrated ones that have been shown to kill people, as anyone in the nuclear power industry can tell you. And just in case you’re not worried enough, listen to Noel King at Today Explained interview Annie Jacobsen about her terrifying book Biological War: A Scenario. We may have already lived through a version of it without knowing for sure.

Meet us on Patreon!

The Vox Membership program is getting even better with access to Vox’s Patreon, where members can unlock exclusive videos, livestreams, and chats with our newsroom.

Become a Vox Member to get access to it all.

JOIN VOX ON PATREON
 
 

THE BIG STORY ➠

The truth about rent control

We keep coming back to this one strategy. Renters deserve better.

What if rent control is actually…making housing more expensive? It turns out a seemingly simple measure — capping annual rent increases — is actually fantastically complex, and has many surprising knock-on effects. 

In her latest story, senior Vox reporter Marina Bolotnikova takes us through the unexpected impacts, many permutations, and fascinating history of rent control (versions of which appeared in ancient Rome). She shows how, despite its good intentions, it might be partly to blame for sky-high rents in places like San Francisco and New York City. 

Of course, rent control has many upsides, too, like allowing people more stability in their housing. But the ills it aims to fix might in fact have better policy solutions. As Marina says, “renters deserve better” than just rent control. This might not be what America’s 100 million-plus renters want to hear,  but it is what we all need to know if we want to start to truly fix housing in the US. — Katherine Courage, deputy editor, Future Perfect

READ THE STORY
 
 

⭐ ONE WAY TO DO GOOD THIS WEEK

As you read this, three wildfires are sweeping across the Spokane, Washington area. They have already forced the evacuation of around 65,000 people, destroyed more than 700 structures, and burned through more than 7,000 acres.

Wildfires have long been part of the historical ecology of the Western United States, but, in recent years, they’ve become more extreme across the globe. Climate change has been a key driver of these disasters, which captured national attention just last year when the Eaton and Palisades fires ravaged the Los Angeles area. And numerous other fires are ongoing throughout Washington state and the Pacific Northwest more generally. 

To help those displaced near Spokane, the city’s government has expanded its H.O.M.E. Starts Here Fund, which has historically served people experiencing homelessness, into a wildfire relief fund. According to the program’s website, where it is accepting donations from the public, funds  “will help provide assistance and connect those affected with critical resources as they begin the recovery process.” — Kylie Elise Jones, Future Perfect Fellow

 
 

Want more Future Perfect in your inbox? Sign up for more newsletters here. Need advice? Submit a question to Sigal Samuel's advice column Your Mileage May Vary.

Today’s edition was edited  by Izzie Ramirez and Katherine Courage. 

Facebook TwitterYouTube

Access the web version of this newsletter here.

 

This email was sent to [email protected]. Manage your email preferences or unsubscribe. If you value Vox’s unique explanatory journalism, support our work by becoming a Vox Member.

 

View our Privacy Notice and our Terms of Service.

 

Vox Media, 1201 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 12, Washington, DC 20036.
Copyright © 2026. All rights reserved.