DJI’s US Audit: Possible Ban and a Path Forward
Introduction
DJI, the world’s largest drone manufacturer, is under intense scrutiny by the U.S. federal government. An ongoing national security audit is set to determine whether DJI poses an “unacceptable risk” – and the clock is ticking.¹ If no U.S. agency completes a formal review of DJI by the end of 2025, DJI could be automatically added to the FCC’s Covered List, effectively banning the purchase of new DJI drones with federal funds and blocking their sale in the U.S.¹ This looming deadline has drone professionals anxiously watching Washington. In this post, we’ll break down what the audit involves, who’s participating, what a “Covered List” ban means, DJI’s dominance in the drone industry, and why some argue for a constructive solution – encouraging DJI to meet U.S. security standards rather than being shut out. Along the way, we’ll hear perspectives from government officials, industry stakeholders, and DJI itself to paint a balanced picture of this high-stakes situation.
What the Federal DJI Audit Entails
The audit of DJI is no ordinary review – it’s a comprehensive national security evaluation mandated by Congress. Specifically, the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (passed in late 2024) gives U.S. authorities a one-year window (until Dec 23, 2025) to scrutinize DJI’s drones for potential security threats.¹ The law calls for an “appropriate national security agency” to lead this review, but notably it doesn’t designate which agency must do it.³ In practice, this could fall to agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Defense (DoD), the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the National Security Agency (NSA), or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).⁴ All of these are considered “national security agencies” under U.S. law and have the expertise to evaluate communications and surveillance technology for risks.⁴
So far, however, no agency has officially stepped up to conduct the DJI audit, creating a bit of a bureaucratic standoff.¹ DJI finds itself in an odd limbo: eager to be audited but with no clear auditor. The NDAA-mandated audit would likely involve a thorough examination of DJI’s products, software, and data practices. Agencies would probe whether DJI drones (and their cameras, sensors, and apps) might be sending sensitive data to unauthorized servers or could be manipulated for espionage or sabotage. Essentially, the U.S. government wants to know if flying a DJI drone is a potential backdoor for Chinese intelligence, or if any hidden “spyware” or vulnerabilities exist in DJI’s tech.
Various federal bodies have been concerned about these issues for years. The Department of Defense had already barred its own use of DJI drones back in 2017 due to cyber concerns.¹⁰ The Department of Homeland Security issued warnings in 2019 about data risks from Chinese-made drones.¹⁰ And in 2024, the FBI and DHS’s Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) put out a joint memo cautioning that Chinese drones could be security risks.¹⁰ All of this sets the stage: multiple security agencies are aware of the concerns and could be involved in the audit’s analysis.
However, the audit needs a lead agency to actually do the work. Congress didn’t name one, which DJI has criticized as a major gap – if nobody is assigned, the process could stall.³ DJI’s perspective is that they are ready and willing to cooperate with any review. In fact, DJI has publicly called on the government to initiate the audit, stating they have “nothing to hide.”² In an open letter from March 2025, a DJI executive directly urged the heads of DHS, DoD, FBI, NSA, and ODNI to begin the evaluation “right away,” expressing confidence that DJI products can withstand the strictest scrutiny.¹⁵ DJI even points out that multiple independent security audits (by firms like Booz Allen and Kivu Consulting) and U.S. agencies (like the Department of Interior and Idaho National Lab) have previously vetted its drones without finding malicious components.¹⁵ From DJI’s standpoint, the audit is a chance to prove their drones are secure – as long as an agency actually conducts it.
Agencies Involved and Their Roles
Several agencies are circling around this issue, each with a slightly different stake:
Department of Defense (DoD): The DoD is concerned about any tech that could threaten military info or operations. It already stopped using DJI drones in its own programs.¹⁰ While DoD could be an “appropriate” agency to do the NDAA audit, it might be reluctant to devote resources unless tasked from above. However, DoD’s involvement is certain if DJI is deemed a threat – it means none of its units can buy DJI gear and it will push for alternatives.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS): DHS (which includes agencies like Customs and Border Protection, and CISA) worries about drones in critical infrastructure and domestic security contexts. DHS was among the first to publicly warn about DJI, with a leaked 2017 memo alleging DJI was sharing U.S. data with Chinese authorities.¹⁰ DHS could spearhead the audit through CISA or other arms, since it handles tech threat assessments for civilian use. DHS is also relevant because many police and emergency services use DJI drones; if they’re deemed unsafe, DHS would issue guidance or restrictions affecting law enforcement grants and resources.
Department of Commerce: Commerce isn’t a national security agency per se, but it plays a big role through trade regulations. In fact, Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security already placed DJI on the U.S. Entity List in 2020, citing concerns about DJI’s involvement in human rights abuses in China. (That move restricts some exports to DJI, but didn’t ban domestic sales.) More recently, under the Biden Administration, Commerce signaled it was considering new rules to restrict or ban imports of Chinese drones altogether.⁹ By July 2025, the Commerce Department even launched a Section 232 investigation into drone imports – a national security probe that could lead to tariffs or import limits on Chinese-made drones.⁹ So while Commerce isn’t running the NDAA security audit, it is actively looking at supply chain and trade measures that could squeeze DJI’s access to the U.S. market.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC): The FCC comes into play if the audit (or lack thereof) triggers DJI being put on the Covered List. The FCC maintains this list of communications equipment and services that are deemed a security threat.⁶ Normally, companies get on the Covered List after a recommendation from a security agency. In DJI’s case, Congress essentially said “either a security agency flags DJI as a risk or, if no one evaluates it, we’ll add DJI to the list by default.”⁴ FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr has been very vocal about DJI; back in 2021 he likened DJI to “an airborne version of Huawei,” pointing to the sensitive data its drones collect (high-res critical infrastructure images, etc.).⁶ Carr publicly called for DJI to be added to the Covered List as a precaution.⁶ The FCC isn’t doing the security audit, but it will be the one to enforce consequences via its list and equipment authorizations (more on that soon).
In summary, the audit is an interagency puzzle: Congress made the mandate, national security agencies (DHS, DoD, etc.) are supposed to do the technical vetting, and the FCC will carry out the “ban” mechanism if needed. The Department of Commerce, while not auditing per se, is simultaneously tightening the screws through trade and import actions.⁹ And over all of this, the White House’s stance on Chinese tech will influence how aggressively agencies act. (Notably, the situation spans two administrations: President Biden signed the NDAA with the review requirement in 2024,⁹ and then President Trump – now in office again in 2025 – issued an Executive Order to boost U.S. drone manufacturing.⁹ Both administrations share wariness toward Chinese drones, albeit with different approaches.)
The Covered List and a Potential DJI Ban
What exactly happens if DJI is labeled a “Covered” entity? Being added to the FCC’s Covered List is like getting put on the tech industry’s blacklist. First and foremost, it means no federal funds can be used to purchase or operate DJI’s equipment.⁶ That affects a wide range of programs: for example, any drones bought with federal grants (for police, fire departments, research universities, etc.) would be off-limits if they’re DJI. Already, laws like the American Security Drone Act (ASDA) of 2023 have banned federal agencies themselves from using Chinese-made drones.¹⁰ A Covered List designation goes further, extending to federally-funded state and local projects and potentially even private telecom infrastructure.
Additionally, the FCC Covered List designation triggers a ban on new equipment authorizations for DJI’s products.⁵ The FCC must certify any wireless/radio transmitting device before it can be sold in the U.S. DJI drones rely on such certifications (for their radios, Wi-Fi, etc.). If DJI is on the list, the FCC will no longer approve any new models or hardware changes.⁵ In other words, DJI couldn’t release new drone models in the U.S. – they’d be blocked at the certification stage.⁵ Over time, this freezes DJI out of the market: technology evolves rapidly, and if they can’t introduce new products or even update existing ones, customers will have to look elsewhere. DJI itself has said it “would be prevented from launching new products in the U.S. market” under these rules.⁵
There’s even discussion at the FCC about possibly revoking existing equipment authorizations for companies on the Covered List.⁵ While not decided yet, if that happened, it could make it technically illegal to operate certain DJI drones that use unlicensed radio transmitters in the U.S.⁵ That scenario is more extreme – as of now, existing owners are not being told they must ground their drones. In fact, current DJI drones would likely continue flying if a ban kicks in; they just might not receive future firmware updates or support.⁴ But let’s be clear: adding DJI to the Covered List is essentially a de facto ban on DJI’s ability to do business and on the ability to use federal dollars for its products.¹
We should note this isn’t an arbitrary punishment – it’s framed as a risk management step. The Covered List is meant to catalog tech that U.S. authorities consider a security threat, and it already includes Chinese telecom giants like Huawei, ZTE, Hikvision, and others.⁶ Those entries were based on findings that their equipment could enable spying or sabotage. For DJI, the worry is the drones’ data collection capabilities. As FCC’s Carr warned, DJI drones capture high-resolution imagery, can map critical infrastructure, and even use sensors that might detect personal information (faces, body temperature, etc.) – data that could be exploited by Beijing if automatically fed back to China.⁶ U.S. officials essentially don’t want to risk a “Huawei on wings” scenario.⁶
If the audit finds DJI is safe, the hope is that a ban can be averted. But if the audit (or the lack of one) leads to DJI on the Covered List, here are the implications in practical terms:
Federal Procurement: No government agency (military or civilian) could buy DJI drones. Agencies like the Interior Department have already preemptively grounded fleets of Chinese drones.¹⁰ With a Covered List ban, that becomes law – you won’t see FBI, FEMA, or local police (using DHS grant money) purchasing DJI. Many have already switched to alternatives under internal directives, but this codifies it.
Grants and Infrastructure: Any project funded by federal grants (e.g., research grants from NSF, state homeland security grants, etc.) could not include DJI equipment. This means a university using a NOAA grant for environmental drone surveys or a fire department with FEMA funding for disaster drones must avoid DJI. Also, the phrase “U.S. communications infrastructure” in the NDAA means DJI drones likely couldn’t be used on or around critical communications systems (for instance, inspecting cell towers for a carrier might fall under that, effectively barring DJI in telecom sector work).⁴
Commercial Market Access: While a Covered List ban doesn’t outright forbid private companies or individuals from owning DJI drones, it severely chokes the supply. Retailers can’t get new stock because of blocked certifications and import issues. In fact, this is already happening: FCC and trade actions have contributed to DJI availability issues, and U.S. customs scrutiny has held up DJI shipments.² As a result, as of mid-2025, DJI drones are “almost impossible to find” at many U.S. retailers.¹⁰ If the ban is formalized, this shortage becomes a long-term reality – no new DJI units coming in legally. We’re essentially seeing a slow-motion banning play out in advance, with DJI’s latest models (like the Mavic 4 Pro) never even officially released in the U.S.¹
Operational Restrictions: Over time, using DJI drones for certain work could become legally sensitive. Already, entities working in critical infrastructure or government contracts are shying away from DJI to avoid any compliance issues. If DJI is flagged as a security threat, one could imagine regulations or insurance policies that discourage its use. It’s mentioned that using DJI drones for government or critical infrastructure projects may be outright prohibited if the ban happens.⁴ Private recreational users should still be able to fly their existing DJI drones (no one is coming to confiscate them), but they might suffer from lack of updates or support in the long run.⁴
In short, being on the Covered List would push DJI to the margins of the U.S. drone ecosystem – no government sales, no new consumer sales, and a gradual squeezing of existing users through attrition (no new parts, no service, potential legal liabilities). It’s a huge decision with multi-billion-dollar ramifications, which is why it’s getting so much attention in the drone community.
DJI’s Global Dominance and Product Excellence
Why does a potential DJI ban matter so profoundly? Because DJI is not just another drone maker – it’s the dominant force in the industry. By most estimates, DJI commands around 70% of the global drone market across consumer and commercial segments.⁸ In the U.S., DJI accounts for more than half of all drones sold, even after years of U.S. government pushback.⁶ ⁹ This means a huge portion of drone professionals (photographers, videographers, surveyors, infrastructure inspectors, public safety officials, etc.) rely on DJI gear daily. DJI’s footprint is everywhere: their drones are used by police and firefighters for search and rescue and disaster response, by scientists and engineers for research and mapping, by filmmakers and journalists for aerial footage, and by countless businesses for everything from real estate photography to agricultural monitoring.⁸
The reason DJI rose to the top is largely its technical innovation and reliability. Ask any seasoned drone pilot and they’ll tell you DJI’s drones are renowned for being user-friendly, feature-packed, and dependable. DJI pioneered many of the advancements that make drones easy and safe to fly: robust stabilization systems, obstacle avoidance sensors, high-quality gimbal-mounted cameras, long battery life, and intuitive flight software. A decade ago, flying drones was largely the realm of hobbyists assembling kits. DJI changed that by offering polished, ready-to-fly products like the Phantom and Mavic series that just work out of the box. For many users, a DJI drone is the gold standard – capable of holding a rock-steady hover, capturing cinema-grade video, and returning home with a tap of a button.
Importantly, DJI has also been cost-effective. Competitors often have a hard time matching DJI’s price-to-performance ratio. As analyst Elsa Kania noted, DJI has a “comparative advantage” in price and performance relative to most rivals.²⁰ This means that if DJI got removed from the U.S. market, many drone users fear they’d be left with either more expensive or less capable options. “Customers want the best technology at the best price. That still often means DJI,” said Chris Fink, who leads a U.S. user advocacy group.¹⁷ It’s telling that even as Washington deliberates banning DJI, American consumers and agencies keep buying them whenever they’re available – because they trust the product to get the job done.
DJI’s track record for reliability and innovation has earned it a strong reputation. Their flagship Mavic, Inspire, and Phantom drones are celebrated for durability and cutting-edge features. For example, DJI drones introduced features like geofencing (to stay out of no-fly zones), “return to home” failsafes, and advanced tracking shots that were unheard of from others at the time. They also rolled out a special “Government Edition” in 2019 tailored for sensitive U.S. government uses – those models operate offline with no data transmission, specifically to address security concerns.¹⁰ At one point, even a Pentagon report in 2021 (leaked to the public) apparently found no evidence of malicious hardware or software in DJI’s government-specific drones, somewhat vindicating DJI’s assurances on security for that product line.¹⁰
The company’s sheer scale also means it can invest heavily in R&D. DJI has thousands of patents and continues to push the envelope in drone capabilities. (For professionals, this means access to ever-better tools – higher-resolution cameras, improved AI for avoiding obstacles or tracking subjects, and new types of drones for different needs, from tiny FPV racers to hefty industrial platforms.)
All this is to say, DJI’s dominance is not just about market share – it’s about how integral their products have become to drone operations worldwide. A construction firm planning a site survey, a wedding videographer capturing a big day, a rural firefighter scouting a wildfire’s edge – countless folks reach for DJI drones by default because they’re confident in the tech. Even some U.S. government users quietly continued using older DJI drones for non-critical tasks because the alternatives were lacking. For example, several U.S. police departments have publicly lamented that bans on DJI would degrade their capabilities, as domestic alternatives often have shorter flight times or lower camera quality. One police official bluntly said they need “drones that work, now” for life-saving missions, implying DJI fits that bill despite the geopolitical concerns.⁸ ¹⁷
Recognizing this reality, many in the drone community are nervous about a ban. It’s not that they dismiss security concerns; it’s that DJI’s technology has become deeply woven into the fabric of the industry. The global drone market (projected to be nearly $58 billion by 2030) has been largely shaped by DJI’s presence.⁸ Pulling DJI out of the equation isn’t simple; it’s like removing the lead player from a team – the whole game changes. U.S. drone manufacturers, while growing, still trail in scale. And other foreign competitors (like France’s Parrot or China’s Autel) have much smaller footprints. So there’s a legitimate worry that a DJI ban could leave a void that the industry – and end users – aren’t prepared to fill immediately.
Implications of a DJI Ban: Security vs. Industry Impact
The debate over banning DJI highlights a classic policy dilemma: national security versus commercial and consumer interests. On one side, U.S. officials argue that restricting DJI is a necessary step to protect security. On the other side, industry stakeholders and many end users warn that an outright ban could backfire, harming public safety and innovation without truly improving security.
From the government’s perspective, the risks presented by DJI are too serious to ignore. “Restricting DJI is a justified and necessary action to protect U.S. security interests,” said Rep. Michael Guest, a lawmaker involved in border security oversight.⁷ U.S. security agencies fear a scenario where footage or data captured by DJI drones – say, aerial maps of critical infrastructure or sensitive locations – quietly ends up in the hands of the Chinese government. Given China’s national intelligence laws (which can compel companies to assist in state intelligence work), this concern isn’t just paranoia. There’s also worry about cyber vulnerabilities: past analyses found the DJI mobile app at one point collected more data than it should, and researchers demonstrated potential ways to hijack DJI drone Wi-Fi links.⁸ In an era of heightened U.S.–China tensions, officials are applying a “better safe than sorry” philosophy. We’ve seen similar moves in other domains: the U.S. government banned Huawei and ZTE gear from telecom networks, citing the potential for espionage.⁶ Many feel drones – with their cameras in the sky – could be an analogous threat if not tightly controlled.⁶ In short, the national security camp asserts that no cost is too high to plug a possible security hole, especially one involving foreign-controlled tech flying over U.S. soil.
From the industry and user perspective, however, a blanket ban on DJI looks more like cutting off your nose to spite your face. The drone industry is still growing and maturing. DJI’s products, for all the controversy, have enabled huge leaps in capability for private and public sectors. A broad coalition of drone users – from farmers to filmmakers to first responders – has raised concerns that banning DJI would set them back years. They argue that there’s no clear alternative that matches DJI across all the use cases. Yes, the U.S. has some excellent drone companies (like Skydio, which specializes in autonomous tracking drones), but even domestic manufacturers often rely on Chinese parts and can’t yet produce the diverse lineup that DJI offers.⁸ ¹⁷ It’s also argued that public safety could suffer if agencies lose access to affordable eye-in-the-sky tools. Imagine a small-town fire department that got a DJI drone via a grant: if it breaks and DJI is banned, that department might not have the budget for a much pricier U.S.-made replacement, potentially leaving them without a drone at all during an emergency.
Even some security experts acknowledge the trade-offs. Elsa Kania, a security analyst, noted that among the downsides of a ban are “near-term impacts on a range of users and consumers,” given DJI’s edge in price and capability.²⁰ The U.S. drone industry itself is split: established user groups (like the Drone Advocacy Alliance, which includes companies that use or partner with DJI) oppose country-of-origin bans and emphasize how DJI drones benefit operations.¹⁷ Meanwhile, a coalition of U.S. drone manufacturers (the Partnership for Drone Competitiveness, backed by firms like Skydio and Brinc) supports tougher action against DJI, arguing that China heavily subsidizes DJI, which “undercuts” U.S. innovation and poses long-term security risks.⁸ ¹⁷ Michael Robbins, CEO of the industry group AUVSI, echoed that dependence on drones “dumped…below market value due to foreign government subsidies” has stifled the American drone sector.⁹ In his view (and many U.S. manufacturers’ view), a DJI ban might hurt in the short run but could force a boom in domestic drone development, leveling the playing field.
Another angle is the international reaction. China’s government has not been silent – Beijing warned in early 2025 that it would “take all necessary measures” if the U.S. bans Chinese drones.⁸ This hints at possible retaliation, maybe restrictions on American tech companies in China. The DJI issue is thus tangled up in the broader U.S.–China tech rivalry. And some worry that banning a globally popular product like DJI could set a precedent that might invite reciprocal actions or fragment the tech landscape further.
For drone professionals, the bottom line is that a DJI ban isn’t just about swapping brands – it could reshape the industry. Many are watching to see if the government will provide any support or transition plan (for example, funding to help agencies replace DJI drones with alternatives). As of now, the approach seems to be “rip off the band-aid” – impose restrictions and hope the market adapts. Critics of that approach say it risks collateral damage: losing useful technology and hampering businesses without a guaranteed security benefit. Proponents say the U.S. can’t delay tough decisions on Chinese tech and that spurring domestic competition is ultimately healthier.
A Path Forward: Compliance Over Exclusion
Amid this polarized debate, a compelling argument has emerged from some experts and industry voices: instead of outright exclusion, why not find a way for DJI to stay in the market under stricter U.S. oversight and compliance conditions? In other words, encourage or require DJI to create a U.S.-based entity or framework that satisfies national security concerns – a solution that preserves the benefits of DJI’s technology while mitigating risks.
What could this look like in practice? It might involve several components:
Domestic Manufacturing or Assembly: DJI could be pressed to build or assemble drones on U.S. soil (or in partnership with a U.S. company) for the American market. This would allow greater oversight of the hardware supply chain. In fact, DJI announced an intention to do some manufacturing in the U.S. back in 2019, likely to assuage government fears.¹⁰ A U.S.-based assembly plant, potentially using vetted components, could reduce concerns about hidden spyware in the hardware. It also creates American jobs, addressing political pressures. Think of how automobile companies build cars in the U.S. to meet “Buy American” sentiments – a similar model could apply to critical drone components.
Secure Data Practices (U.S. Cloud and Local Control): One of the biggest worries is where user data goes. A compliant solution would have DJI commit to keeping all U.S. user data on U.S. servers, managed by a trusted third-party if necessary. DJI has already taken steps in this direction: they offer a “Local Data Mode” that lets users fly without any internet connection,¹⁰ and in 2024 they even disabled automatic flight log syncing to servers for U.S. users.¹⁰ To meet U.S. standards, DJI could establish a dedicated cloud infrastructure in America (possibly run by an American partner). Additionally, DJI could allow regular source code audits by U.S. cybersecurity firms or government representatives to ensure no hidden data transfers occur. Essentially, build technical and legal safeguards so that even if Beijing knocked on DJI’s door for data, there’d be nothing accessible or it would trigger alarms.
Corporate Governance and Oversight: A more complex but intriguing idea is reorganizing DJI’s U.S. business into a semi-independent entity that’s accountable to U.S. regulators. For example, DJI could incorporate a subsidiary in the U.S. with American leadership or even a board that includes U.S. persons with security clearances. This entity would comply with U.S. laws and could be the holder of sensitive responsibilities (like handling U.S. customer data, interfacing with the Pentagon on any vulnerabilities, etc.). Some have floated analogies to how other companies navigated similar challenges in software/social media. While selling a stake of DJI to American investors might be far-fetched, there could be middle-ground measures like having U.S. security liaisons who inspect DJI’s operations and report to the government.
Strict Compliance Regime (Audits & Bug Bounties): DJI can be invited to participate in a rigorous ongoing compliance program. This might involve annual third-party audits of their products for backdoors, with results shared with U.S. authorities. DJI has shown openness to this – they publish security white papers and have a bug bounty program to reward researchers who find flaws.³ ¹⁵ Making such efforts a formal requirement could provide continuous assurance. DJI could, for example, agree to meet U.S. federal cybersecurity standards (like the NIST standards) in its product design. Notably, DJI claims it already achieved certifications like ISO/IEC 27001 for information security and even compliance with NIST’s encryption standards (FIPS 140-2) for some components.¹⁵ Ensuring those standards are maintained and verified by U.S. auditors would be key.
Feature Restrictions for Sensitive Use: DJI might also create special “government editions” or tweaks that address specific worries. They did this once: the DJI Government Edition drones have removed networking capability and every firmware update is vetted.¹⁰ One could envision a scenario where DJI is allowed for non-sensitive use, but any deployment in critical sectors must use these hardened versions. Or perhaps geofencing is enhanced to automatically restrict flight over military bases and other high-security areas (DJI already implements some no-fly zones at the request of governments). These measures could reassure officials that even if DJI drones are out there, they’re not going to wander into the Pentagon’s airspace or unknowingly film something highly sensitive.
The overarching idea is a “trust but verify” approach. Instead of assuming DJI is guilty by association (with China) and banning it, the U.S. could set stringent conditions under which DJI can operate. If DJI meets them – by localizing production, walling off data, accepting audits, etc. – then it can continue to compete in the market. If it fails or if any serious misconduct is found, then the hammer (ban) could still come down. This approach would push DJI to invest in U.S. trust.
From DJI’s perspective, this might actually be palatable. The company has indicated it wants to stay in the U.S. and is willing to prove itself. DJI’s spokespersons have said they are “actively engaging” with Congress for a fair, evidence-based evaluation process.⁷ They’ve also emphasized that they have never received a request for data from the Chinese government and that no Chinese government entity has a seat on DJI’s board.⁸ In other words, DJI is trying to position itself as a normal private company ready to comply with reasonable rules, not a trojan horse for Beijing.⁸ If the U.S. government provided a roadmap for DJI to follow (short of divesting to an American owner, which is likely a non-starter), DJI might well jump at the opportunity. After all, the U.S. market is huge – reportedly DJI’s largest market as of a few years ago – and losing it would be a major blow.⁸
There is precedent for such middle-ground solutions. For instance, Autel, another Chinese drone maker, has established a North American subsidiary and conducts some U.S. assembly to present certain models as compliant for government use. These show it’s not unprecedented to localize and compartmentalize a Chinese tech product for U.S. acceptance.
Encouraging DJI to do something similar could be a win-win: the U.S. secures its interests, and DJI’s customers don’t lose a beloved technology. Some analysts argue this would be more productive than a ban, because it harnesses DJI’s innovation while forcing them to raise their security game to U.S. standards. It could even set a benchmark for other foreign tech firms, demonstrating that compliance and transparency can lead to market access, whereas stonewalling leads to exclusion.
Perspectives from All Sides
To round out the discussion, let’s hear a few voices on this issue:
U.S. Government Officials: The U.S. stance is summed up well by FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr’s remark, *“We do not need an airborne version of Huawei.”*⁶ The message is that even if DJI hasn’t been caught in wrongdoing, the mere potential for Chinese influence is enough to warrant action. Rep. Michael Guest’s comment that restricting DJI is “justified and necessary” reinforces that many in Congress see this as a proactive security measure.⁷ Furthermore, not every official is gung-ho about an automatic ban; some would prefer an actual review take place. The fact that Congress gave a one-year window for a review (instead of immediate ban legislation) suggests that at least some policymakers want an objective determination of risk if possible, rather than an assumption of guilt.
Industry Stakeholders: The U.S. drone industry is clearly divided. On one hand, groups like AUVSI (which includes many U.S.-based manufacturers) support the Commerce Department’s probes and efforts to bolster domestic production.⁹ They talk about unfair subsidies and dumped pricing by DJI, implying that a ban might level the playing field and foster a healthier domestic industry long-term.⁹ On the other hand, many drone service companies and enterprise users align with the DJI-friendly Drone Advocacy Alliance, which argues that focusing on “country of origin” is misguided.¹⁷ They emphasize real-world impacts: for example, if a utility company uses DJI drones to inspect power lines, banning DJI could slow down inspections, affecting maintenance and outage response.
DJI’s Position: DJI, for its part, has been quite vocal. The company insists that country of origin alone shouldn’t be a basis for exclusion – they want policies “based on technological merit, not country of origin.”³ DJI’s communications often highlight the steps they’ve taken to ensure data security, such as implementing encryption, offering offline modes, and not having any Chinese government ties on their board.⁸ They also underscore the lack of concrete evidence that their drones have ever been used for espionage. (A point echoed in some past audits and government evaluations for certain models.) A DJI white paper in 2025 compiled years of security features and independent audits to reassure stakeholders.¹⁰ Perhaps most telling is DJI’s almost anxious request for the audit to happen: they’ve said it is unfair for them to be banned “through no fault of [their] own” simply because no agency does the work of reviewing them.³ In other words, DJI is seeking due process – test us, they say, and if we fail, so be it, but don’t condemn us by default. They also ask for a right to respond to any findings, noting that any complex tech will have some vulnerabilities, and they are willing to patch any issues discovered.³
In essence, the balance of commentary is this: U.S. security voices are cautioning “we can’t trust a company from an adversary nation with our critical data,” while industry and DJI voices are saying “don’t cripple our capabilities without solid evidence of a threat; let’s find a way to make it safe instead.”
Conclusion
As the end-of-2025 deadline approaches, the U.S. drone community is in a holding pattern of uncertainty. Will a national security agency pick up the gauntlet and audit DJI in time? Or will bureaucratic hesitancy lead to an automatic ban on the most popular drones in the country? The stakes are enormous. This saga underscores the growing friction between national security priorities and globalized technology. Drones are not just toys or tools; they sit at the intersection of innovation, commerce, and security.
For drone professionals, the key takeaway is to stay informed and be prepared. It’s wise to have contingency plans (alternative equipment, backing up data, etc.) in case the ban does come to pass. But it’s also important to engage in the conversation. Many experts advocate for a nuanced approach – one that addresses legitimate security concerns without sacrificing the progress and utility that DJI’s technology has brought to the field. Encouraging DJI to localize operations and enhance transparency could be a sensible compromise. After all, the goal is to ensure drones can be used safely by Americans, not to eliminate the best drones that Americans have come to rely on.
In the end, whether DJI is viewed as a security risk or a valuable innovator, everyone agrees on one thing: drones are indispensable tools now and in the future. How the U.S. handles the DJI situation could set a precedent for managing foreign tech in a way that safeguards security while still fostering innovation and competition. Let’s hope for a solution that lets drone pros continue to soar, with both security and capability in hand.
Sources
UAV Coach — “The Complete DJI Ban Guide [Updated for 2025]” (overview of NDAA audit trigger & timeline): https://uavcoach.com/dji-ban/
UAV Coach — “The Complete DJI Ban Guide” (availability/import notes; DJI calling for audit): https://uavcoach.com/dji-ban/
DJI ViewPoints — “U.S. Congress Finalizes FY25 NDAA… Here’s What to Watch for in 2025”: https://viewpoints.dji.com/blog/u.s.-congress-finalizes-fy25-national-defense-authorization-act-ndaa-without-countering-ccp-drones-act-heres-what-to-watch-for-in-2025
Rupprecht Law — “NDAA 2025 and Drones” (agency definitions; implications): https://jrupprechtlaw.com/national-defense-authorization-act-ndaa-2025-and-drones/
Rupprecht Law — “NDAA 2025 and Drones” (FCC equipment authorization consequences): https://jrupprechtlaw.com/national-defense-authorization-act-ndaa-2025-and-drones/
Reuters — “U.S. FCC commissioner wants new restrictions… DJI” (Brendan Carr, Covered List): https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-fcc-commissioner-wants-new-restrictions-review-chinese-dronemaker-dji-2021-10-19/
Rest of World — “DJI drones are everywhere. The U.S. may still ban them” (NDAA clause & lawmaker commentary): https://restofworld.org/2025/dji-drones-china-us-ban/
Rest of World — “DJI drones are everywhere. The U.S. may still ban them” (market share; DJI statements): https://restofworld.org/2025/dji-drones-china-us-ban/
Reuters — “US opens national security probes into imported drones” (Section 232; AUVSI remarks): https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-opens-national-security-probes-into-imported-drones-2025-07-15/
UAV Coach — DJI ban timeline & U.S. agency actions (FBI/CISA memo, DOI grounding; gov’t edition; 2019 letter): https://uavcoach.com/dji-ban/
(Included within 10) CNN coverage of DHS memo via UAV Coach page.
(Included within 10) New York Times coverage of Interior grounding via UAV Coach page.
(Included within 10) Washington Post reporting on Chinese funding via UAV Coach page.
Commercial UAV News — background on NDAA-required review & potential ban: https://www.commercialuavnews.com/public-safety/dji-national-security-review-2025
DJI (Adam Welsh letter) — Open letter urging U.S. agencies to begin the audit: https://viewpoints.dji.com/blog/u-s-national-security-review-open-letter
DJI ViewPoints — “Don’t Ground Innovation” (impacts of banning): https://viewpoints.dji.com/blog/dont-ground-innovation
DroneXL — “DJI Drone Ban Looms…” (industry/user perspectives & quotes): https://dronexl.co/2025/09/09/dji-drone-ban-looms-in-us/
The Verge — “DJI is skipping the US with its most advanced drone yet” (Mavic 4 Pro availability context): https://www.theverge.com/tech/665418/dji-mavic-4-pro-no-us-launch-specs-price-release-date
OpenSecrets — DJI lobbying spending overview: https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2024&id=D000067874
CNAS (Elsa Kania commentary cited in RoW) — analysis of security vs. industry impacts: