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.

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?

I don't understand how banning future drones helps national security in any way.

So, America just shot itself in the foot again. It's starting to look like a pattern.

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)

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: https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/National-Security-De...

> 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.

I'm sure, the ban on DJI devices will stop fentanyl and terrorists.

~~I am not seeing that, why do you say that?~~ Update: answering my own question. It's the ††.

https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist

The new addition: Uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) and UAS critical components produced in a foreign country†† and all communications and video surveillance equipment and services listed in Section 1709(a)(1) of the FY25 National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 118-159)

††: For purposes of inclusion of UAS and UAS critical components, we incorporate the definitions included in the associated National Security Determination

https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/National-Security-De...

What and how much do I need to pay to add Don Jr. to my company’s board? $10MM converted to TRUMP? $100MM?

> I get that we are trying to bolster domestic tech but this is a stick when it should be a carrot.

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?

No: the threat model as stated 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.

(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.)

No, they can buy previously authorized DJI drones, or used ones on eBay, no problem.

Won't this place drone users in US in severe disadvantage right at the time when drones of all kinds are being used to provide all kinds of useful services ? In comparison users in countries with better policy planning will reap benefits.

Shouldn't there been some sort of planning for a local company to provide at least comparable products before needlessly wreaking havoc like this ?

DJI requires activation (through a cell phone app, exposing personally identifiable information) for all their products, even action cameras.

Part of it could be to help ensure that the drones are operated in compliance with national regulations, such as FAA regulations in the US. Modern drones consult databases of restricted zones they are not supposed to fly in, and those databases change occasionally.

For regular airplanes flown by highly trained pilots relying on pilots to put in the effort to learn of changes that might affect a trip works. If a regular airplane pilot flies somewhere they are not supposed to be because they didn't check NOTAMs or were using outdated charts no one is going to say Cessna needs to do more to keep pilots from making those mistakes.

For drones, which require much less training and are sold to consumers, it is much more likely that the operators won't keep up to date. A spate of consumer drones entering restricted airspace would definitely lead to serious pressure on the makers to do something about it.

Similar for updates that fix bugs. With airplanes it is reasonable to expect the operator to apply any updates that the maker releases that fix bugs that might affect airworthiness. With drones, not so much.

Ask HP the same question for printers or Microsoft for Windows. Today everthing needs an account, even wash machines.

Drones have regulated no-fly areas in the US (other nations too), the regulations basically require some measures like this.

I don't think US-made drones would be any different.

>> why do people need an account to activate/fly?

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.

https://slate.com/technology/2015/03/white-house-lawn-drone-...

> 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?

Theft, for one. Anything that can be re-sold secondhand with no way for the owner to verify it hasn't been stolen will get stolen and re-sold for drug money.

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.

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].

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.

[1] https://www.sneakerfreaker.com/news/la-train-heist-sneakers-...

Every piece of USA tech has a data path back to USA -- who are actively threatening a bunch of countries right now.

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.

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.

It was as equally clever as it was evil to put pressure on us to ditch Chinese tech, so USA can now attack us.

More countries/regions should have something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_China_2025

> 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.

Source? My understanding is that Ukrainian drones are pretty much 100% off-the-shelf Chinese components.