Non-attached MEP Fabio De Masi has asked the European Commission to disclose what information it holds on the actors believed responsible for drone incidents referenced in the EU's Action Plan on Drone and Counter-Drone Security, pressing the executive on a question it previously sidestepped.
The written question, submitted on 10 June 2026, follows the Commission's response to an earlier query (E-001142/2026) in which it stated that 'attribution of responsibility for individual incidents is not within the Commission's competence.' De Masi now seeks to determine, without prejudice to formal attribution, what intelligence the Commission has gathered from Member States, EU agencies or other authorities on likely perpetrators, their affiliations, and the origin of the incidents.
first, for the Commission to share any information it possesses on the actors believed responsible; second, to clarify whether it has received data from Member States or EU bodies on the incidents' perpetrators and what conclusions it has drawn. The phrasing suggests De Masi is probing whether the Commission has more knowledge than it previously acknowledged, potentially testing the boundary between operational security and institutional transparency.
Politically, the question targets a gap between the Commission's public security commitments and its reluctance to discuss specific threats. By focusing on 'actors believed responsible' rather than formal attribution, De Masi attempts to extract operational context without triggering jurisdictional objections. The action plan, published earlier in 2026, outlined measures to counter drone threats but left incident details vague.
The Commission is expected to reply within approximately six weeks. Its answer will signal whether it is willing to share threat assessments or will maintain that such information falls under Member State or agency competence. A detailed response could bolster the action plan's credibility; a refusal may fuel criticism that the plan lacks substance on the actual threats it aims to address.
Stakeholders affected include EU security agencies, which may face pressure to share intelligence; national authorities, which could see their operational autonomy challenged; drone industry operators, who face potential regulatory tightening; and civil liberties advocates, who will watch for any expansion of surveillance or data-sharing powers.