"What does this mean?<p>• New devices on the Covered List, such as foreign-made drones, are prohibited from
receiving FCC authorization and are therefore prohibited from being imported for use or
sale in the U.S. This update to the Covered List does not prohibit the import, sale, or
use of any existing device models the FCC previously authorized.<p>• This action does not affect any previously-purchased drone. Consumers can
continue to use any drone they have already lawfully purchased or acquired."<p>Commentary: DJI has effectively been banned from operation in the US (unable to import anything with a transmitter, including most of their gimbals, mics, and other photography related equipment) They represent 70 to 80% of the US drone market. Probably closer to 100% for those that fly noncommercially. Autel, the other large manufacturer, is also banned.
If drones are a threat to national security, then all existing drones should be grounded, regardless of the manufacturer. Or, if Chinese drones are the threat, then all existing Chinese-made drones should be grounded?<p>I don't understand how banning <i>future</i> drones helps national security in any way.
>> banning future drones<p>It is about money. If they ban drones that are already inside the US, they risk lawsuits by drone owners/importers for expropriation of their property. Banning things that are not already inside the country is easier as nobody has an absolute right to import stuff.<p>It is akin to weapons bans. Banning future sales of machine guns is far far easier to implement than outlawing those already sitting in gun cabinets across the country. The former is free to implement, the later very expensive.
The goal (assuming rational policy) is improving security over time.<p>The economic and political costs of grounding everything now are too high to do that. Even if the FCC somehow had the manpower to enforce such a ban.
Well this would be step one to try to motivate some US company to start manufacturing. Then once it ramps up they can step in with banning existing stuff without causing too much disruption.
Exactly, it's about supply chains. Banning existing drones with no replacements on offer would be unnecessarily disruptive.<p>Though the US should probably just learn from China: Does DJI want to sell in the US? Setup a 50-50 JV with domestic production, skill and technology transfers, or go away.
Wouldn't you want the opposite? Once domestic production ramps up you gradually lift import restrictions to create more competition. I guess that's if the intention is to improve the domestic market in the national interest, rather than to just make people rich.
If I understand correctly, this doesn't ban the import/sale of drone models which the FCC previously approved. That said, in October 2025 the FCC granted itself the authority to retroactively revoke previously-approved models, so this is something they could still potentially do.
So, America just shot itself in the foot again. It's starting to look like a pattern.
It’s like a poorly executed form of protectionism. I guess they’re doing the best they can, can’t expect people unfit for office to create good policy, right.
Well.. DJI have on-the-fly no fly zone update, and newer model can communicate via satellite.<p>That's worse if you believe there are possibility of war...
Attack vector: drone needs to get out of a case, backpack or closet, out of the window and fly somewhere to do something.<p>Meanwhile IoT devices, internet connected kitchen appliances just need to be able to be remotely activated to create a power surge and overwhelm the electric grid. Those can be sold no problem.
I want to believe this is some ploy to open the market for some US manufacturer that slipped a few thousand dollars in an envelope but I have a sneaking suspicion that nobody is coming to fill the void left by this naive protectionism. (Or is it deliberate sabotage? I don't even know anymore)
If it was phased in and didn't specifically include allied country imports, I could believe that.<p>This door-slamming-shut-suddenly method says there is no plan, and given we don't domestically make most of the critical components ourselves, at best it's going to take awhile to build the factories and expertise to make up for the loss of the biggest suppliers in the market.<p>We'll get to pay much higher prices for much worse products while we do so.<p>Just looking at what's available for enterprise use (since there is no consumer-selling US drone company at this point) it looks like US companies are around a decade behind.
It's crazy that it also bans new models from Europe's Wingtra, Quantum Systems, and AgEagle, which are basically the only consumer fixed-wing drones available. Heck, those companies were even previously approved for the DOD's "Blue UAS" list: <a href="https://bluelist.appsplatformportals.us/Cleared-List/" rel="nofollow">https://bluelist.appsplatformportals.us/Cleared-List/</a>
The primary goal of the Trump administration is to destroy American manufacturing. They don't want factories, hence all the tariffs.
> The primary goal of the Trump administration is to destroy American manufacturing. They don't want factories, hence all the tariffs.<p>The goal of the Trump administration is to rebuild American manufacturing, but the impression I get is the people who they have designing the polices are kinda like stopped clocks: right about how free trade dogma was wrong, but lacking the competence to effectively move the needle in the other direction (and favoring bold, impulsive, and ultimately self-defeating action).<p>Also, I feel like there are weird echos of libertarianism here: they've become comfortable with some long-taboo sticks, but are still so psychotically opposed to government programs that the necessary carrots are nowhere to be found. Like tariff revenues should be getting plowed back into subsidies for <i>new</i> domestic manufacturing in strategic industries.
The US has a problem where government revenue has been increasing by the usual amount (i.e. as a percent of GDP it's within the same range it has been for 70+ years), and is therefore the highest it's ever been before in real dollars, but spending has increased by <i>even more than that</i>, and in particular spending has been increasing faster than GDP. But for the last few decades we've had people saying "deficits don't matter".<p>The trouble is, they kind of do, and now "interest on the debt" is eating a chunk out of the budget that rivals the entire Department of Defense. So not only is spending growing faster than GDP, a huge chunk of the money that had historically gone to cover even the traditional spending is now going to interest. And if the deficit stays how it is, that's only going to get worse.<p>The result is that there is no "tariff revenues" to spend on anything. Even with the additional revenue, spending still needs to go down just to tread water.<p>And then the question is, is the thing you're proposing worth more than the additional cuts it would take to cover it, i.e. what do you want to not have in order to have that?
Skydio? For a while they were #2 in consumer drones but found they couldn't compete with DJI and exited the consumer market in 2023. They now do > 50% of their business for the U.S. military and are in tight with the U.S. government. Could be a plan to re-enter the consumer market, this time with no competition.
> some US manufacturer that slipped a few thousand dollars<p>As if they even need to do it surreptitiously. They'd just announce it in the Oval Office with a giant gold plaque for Trump, a few million bucks for the ballroom, and agree that government purchases can be made in Trumpcoin.
Does that mean that DJI can continue to sell models that they've already been selling in the US?
Wow. The text of the determination is just unhinged completely: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/National-Security-Determination-for-UAS.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/National-Security-De...</a><p>> Federal planning for the 2026 FIFA World Cup and 2028 Olympics already assumes that UAS will be a central threat vector. CISA’s soft‑target and UAS guidance notes that crowded venues, transportation nodes, and public‑gathering areas are particularly vulnerable to hostile drone activity.9 Recent congressional hearings on mass‑gathering security have emphasized that UAS are now a routine part of incident planning, alongside more traditional threats.10 The Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of War are already investing heavily in detection, tracking, and mitigation capabilities with these specific events in mind.11 UAS are also playing a critical enabling role on the battlefield in many modern conflicts. In Ukraine and Israel-Gaza, low-cost commercial UAS inflict extensive damage and have caused significant loss of life.12 Drug Cartels are also reportedly using foreign-produced UAS to smuggle drugs into the United States and carry out attacks.<p>I'm sure, the ban on DJI devices will stop fentanyl and terrorists.
As long as there are no favored companies, I'm sure fair competition will ensure that the US regains its edge (and the Olympics will remain safe)<p><a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/drone-company-stock-soars-appointing-donald-trump-jr-advisory-board-rcna181987" rel="nofollow">https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/drone-company...</a>
There is no viable alternative to DJI’s Enterprise offerings. I get that we are trying to bolster domestic tech but this is a stick when it should be a carrot.
> I get that we are trying to bolster domestic tech but this is a stick when it should be a carrot.<p>It's not either-or, it should be both.
Won’t DJI’s current offerings still be available? I bought a Phantom 4 Pro 5 years ago that I use for mapping and it still does the job. I would expect that Enterprise drones would work the same way. Sure we’re not going to get the next new better faster model so in that scenario it does give time for a domestic company to engineer an offering.
Is that what we are trying to do? Does that seem like the most likely plan being executed here?
[dead]
> In their determination, national security agencies referenced, among other things,
concerns that that foreign-made UAS could be used for attacks and disruptions,
unauthorized surveillance, sensitive data exfiltration, and other UAS threats to the
homeland.<p>So people planning attacks and disruptions and unauthorized surveillance will have to buy drones made in the USA?
No: the threat model <i>as stated</i> is referring to, in restated terms, “China could silently occupy DJI headquarters and control US-deployed DJI drones into quasi-military strikes using firmware updates, remote controls, or other such mechanisms.” Same theory as Huawei 5G routers could be remotely wiretapped in various ways, etc.<p>(It’s important to distinguish it from the “buy drone-as-weapon at US retail, use drone inside US” threat model, but beyond telling them apart, I have no position prepared on the relevance of either model.)
Because drones without explosives strapped to them are <i>so effective</i>.. not to mention they spend 99.9% of the time in storage with battery disconnected, <i>so easy</i> to make a bunch of them attack at the same time (because once people know the drones are malicious it’s game over for the attackers).<p>pure idiocy.
With the way DJI drone updates are deployed, that isn’t actually <i>that</i> far fetched, technically. Assuming the targeted event was known in advance in time/space.<p>It would likely be an obvious act of war, but technically it wouldn’t be that hard to pull off.
No, they can buy previously authorized DJI drones, or used ones on eBay, no problem.
People seem to think this is anti-competitive.<p>But these companies have interposed themselves between purchasers and their drones. You have to activate your drone using an app, the apps have been connecting back to china since the early DJI products, and with an update they could just fly away.<p>Seriously, why do people need an account to activate/fly?
Ask HP the same question for printers or Microsoft for Windows. Today everthing needs an account, even wash machines.
I don't think US-made drones would be any different.
>> why do people need an account to activate/fly?<p>So when they find your drone crashed into the Whitehouse lawn, they can track it back to you rather than rely on you to phone in a confession.<p><a href="https://slate.com/technology/2015/03/white-house-lawn-drone-the-man-who-crashed-it-there-won-t-be-charged.html" rel="nofollow">https://slate.com/technology/2015/03/white-house-lawn-drone-...</a><p>> The 31-year-old Usman lost control of a Phantom FC40 drone owned by a friend early that morning, and telephoned his employers and the Secret Service to report the incident when he learned the small model aircraft had been found on the White House grounds.
> Seriously, why do people need an account to activate/fly?<p>Theft, for one. <i>Anything</i> that can be re-sold secondhand with no way for the owner to verify it hasn't been stolen <i>will</i> get stolen and re-sold for drug money.<p>You don't hear mass reports from hobos attacking people for their iPhones any more ever since Apple introduced Activation Lock and Find My, for example. Yes, there still are professionals shipping stolen devices off to China to be parted out and yes, I think we should hold China accountable because there's more than enough evidence at that point, but still, it has drastically cut back on the everyday thefts and robberies.<p>Same thing along supply chains. A container full of expensive things, no matter if it's drones, laptops, phones or sneakers, is a very attractive thing for insiders - but devices needing activation are, assuming a supply chain able to track serial numbers of devices inside containers, effectively worthless other than for parts and Apple is even cutting in on that "market". In contrast, you have routine train heists for millions of dollars worth in sneakers [1].<p>For drones specifically, accountability. Governments are sick and tired of consumer drones flown by morons completely ignoring the law. There's old models without remote-id still around from the old days, but eventually these will all die out and by then, law enforcement has at least some way of holding people accountable.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.sneakerfreaker.com/news/la-train-heist-sneakers-1-4-million-theft/" rel="nofollow">https://www.sneakerfreaker.com/news/la-train-heist-sneakers-...</a>
Despite the amount of sucking up to Trump in the press release, this is not totally stupid. DJI drones do have a data path back to China. Several years ago, the US military, which used to use some DJI drones, decided that the risk was too high. There was an order (in 2022?) to cease using DJI drones and to store them with the batteries removed.<p>On the other hand, Donald Trump Jr. recently acquired an interest in a US drone company, which is selling drone motors to the US military for what seems a high price.
Every piece of USA tech has a data path back to USA -- who are actively threatening a bunch of countries right now.<p>The obvious corollary is that Canada, Greenland & Denmark (Panama, Venezuela, etc. too) and all their allies should get rid of all Windows computers, all Apple phones, all Tesla, etc, etc.<p>It's hard to imagine USA are not planning attacks right now using these tech vectors, given this threat model is being defended against in this way.<p>It was as equally clever as it was evil to put pressure on us to ditch Chinese tech, so USA can now attack us.
I've been in the bowels of the domestic robot/drone parts supply chain. It's ugly, almost non-existent. I wish there was more of a carrot, but the opportunity for that was frankly 5 years ago.<p>NDAA has been a saving grace that we have anything like <a href="https://arkelectron.com/" rel="nofollow">https://arkelectron.com/</a><p>Frankly, they should just rip the bandaid off and apply it to robotics like robovacs/delivery bots/etc scanning homes/offices/critical infrastructure at this point.
Why would anyone build manufacturing to fill a void like this knowing how arbitrary US policy is? One day you are a supplier, the next you are out of business. Long term, telegraphed, intelligent, policy shift is the way to encourage and build a domestic industry, this just makes it hard for us to have nice things.
Of course I’m disturbed by both the proliferation of drones and our administration developing military equipment for a war department instead of defense or rescue.<p>However, I unfortunately am well-aware of a company that made these parts on U.S. soil.<p>I’d be wary of ANY manufacturer of significance within the U.S. that has never had and will never have foreign ties or be influenced by foreign powers that the U.S. in engaged against.<p>The manufacturer I’m aware of was a shitshow with everything that would be important to the military, except for the actual making of the parts, which they were excellent at, at least in certain parts of the company.<p>So because of this, I have to assume that this is a fundamentally <i>ignorant</i> plan to try to nationalize manufacturing for defense, and I’d expect nothing less from our current administration.
That's a much smaller issue than it sounds, Ukraine produces millions of drones without any Chinese components at all except magnets for electric motors, and li-poly cells. Certainly no Chinese electronics. Even lenses for thermal optics are now Ukrainian-made. They don't even come out as much more expensive anymore - there's still some slight price gap but not a considerable one.<p>Having Chinese drones in the sky is a risk. Having a dependency on their supply is another risk.
> That's a much smaller issue than it sounds, Ukraine produces millions of drones without any Chinese components at all except magnets for electric motors, and li-poly cells.<p>Source? My understanding is that Ukrainian drones are pretty much 100% off-the-shelf Chinese components.
That was the case in 2023. Not anymore. Simplest builds still use Chinese parts, but many producers are using all-Ukrainian electronics, designed and produced within Ukraine (GALYCHYNA FC, FRANKIVSK ESC etc. - all clones of SpeedyBee, of course), and some producers are making a further step and use Ukrainian motors, Ukrainian cameras, Ukrainian props (these are so far rather shitty), and frames were made in Ukraine from the beginning.<p>I'm not speaking about bigger - mid-range and long-range drones - they use no Chinese, and sometimes no US-made (for the same reasons), components.<p><a href="https://motor-g.com/en" rel="nofollow">https://motor-g.com/en</a> this company alone produces 100K motors per month now - enough to equip around 7-8% of 4M of quad copters Ukraine makes annually.
[dead]