According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 2569 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the State of Texas. The analysis concludes that any administrative costs incurred as a result of implementing the revised reporting procedures could be absorbed within existing agency resources. This includes adjustments such as eliminating the requirement to send drone usage reports to statewide elected officials and instead posting them publicly online.

Similarly, the bill is anticipated to have no significant fiscal implications for local government entities. Law enforcement agencies in counties or municipalities with populations exceeding 150,000 are already subject to drone reporting requirements, and the proposed modifications are administrative rather than programmatic or operational in nature. Therefore, the bill does not impose new financial or technological burdens on those local entities.

The fiscal review included input from multiple agencies that could be affected by the bill, including the Department of Public Safety, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and the Parks and Wildlife Department. All participating agencies indicated that the bill's requirements could be managed without the need for additional appropriations or resources.

SB 2569 proposes a single, focused change to Section 423.008(a) of the Texas Government Code by eliminating the requirement that certain law enforcement agencies send reports on their use of unmanned aircraft (drones) to the governor, lieutenant governor, and each member of the legislature. The bill maintains the requirement that these reports be posted on the agency's public website—or otherwise made available to the public—during a specific biennial window. The intent behind the bill, as stated by the author, is to reduce the administrative burden associated with producing and distributing large digital reports, especially given the dramatic rise in drone usage statewide.

While the goal of reducing inefficiencies is understandable, the bill undermines an essential element of government transparency and accountability. Removing the requirement to notify elected officials effectively weakens legislative oversight of a rapidly expanding surveillance technology. The existing statute ensures that policymakers are informed about how law enforcement agencies are using drones, which has important implications for privacy, civil liberties, and public trust. Relying solely on agencies to post reports online shifts the burden to individual legislators and executive officials to seek out potentially hundreds of separate postings, making meaningful oversight less likely in practice.

The bill does not modernize the system—it simply removes an effective reporting safeguard without replacing it with a centralized or automatic mechanism that maintains legislative visibility. Although SB 2569 does not introduce new powers or change drone usage policy, its sole effect is to reduce scrutiny of law enforcement surveillance, which is inconsistent with the principles of limited government and responsible governance.

For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 2569.

• Individual Liberty: While the bill does maintain public access to drone usage reports, it removes a key mechanism that helps protect civil liberties: legislative oversight. Drone use by law enforcement implicates privacy rights and potential government overreach. By no longer requiring agencies to notify elected officials, the public loses an important layer of protection and representation. Legislators are less likely to respond to misuse or overreach if they are not aware of it.
• Personal Responsibility: This bill does not directly address individual behavior or personal decision-making. It does not impose or lift obligations on individuals, nor does it incentivize or discourage responsible conduct. The principle is not meaningfully impacted.
• Free Enterprise: The bill applies strictly to government agencies and has no bearing on private drone usage, licensing, or the commercial drone industry. Therefore, it does not affect the free enterprise environment.
• Private Property Rights: While the bill doesn't change any operational rules for drone usage, reducing oversight could allow for expanded or unchecked surveillance near or over private property. With less visibility into agency activities, Texans may be more vulnerable to privacy encroachments without recourse through their elected officials.
• Limited Government: This is where the bill has the strongest negative effect. A government limited in scope must be accountable and transparent. By removing the requirement for law enforcement agencies to report drone usage to the legislature and top executive officials, the bill weakens the checks and balances that prevent potential misuse of surveillance tools. The change may appear administrative, but it erodes oversight at a time when drone surveillance is rapidly expanding.