Is Autel banned in the US?: Autel cannot certify new drone models for the US market after being added to the FCC Covered List. Existing models remain legal.Source: background
Why was Autel added to the Covered List?: Section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA required the FCC to ADD foreign UAS manufacturers citing national security concerns about Chinese-made drones.Source: background
Is Autel suing the FCC?: Yes. Autel filed suit against the FCC in February 2026 and filed its detailed reply in ET Docket 26-23 on 19 May 2026, arguing the Covered List designation violates Fifth Amendment due-process rights.Source: DroneLife
Can I still use my Autel drone?: Yes. The Covered List blocks new model certifications, not the import, sale, or use of previously authorised devices.Source: quick_facts
Why was Autel added to the FCC Covered List?: Autel was added on 22 December 2025 under Section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA; the FCC cited national security concerns, but Autel says the specific evidence behind the decision has never been disclosed to the company.Source: DroneXL
What is the Ralls Corp argument Autel is using against the FCC?: Autel invokes the 2014 D.C. Circuit ruling in Ralls Corp. v. CFIUS, which held that national security review must give affected parties access to at least the unclassified evidence; Autel argues its Covered List designation was issued on secret and DJI-specific evidence it never had a chance to contest.Source: DroneDJ
Can I still use my Autel drone in the US?: Existing Autel models with prior FCC authorisation remain legal to purchase and operate privately in the US; the Covered List blocks new certifications and federal procurement contracts only.

Background

Autel Robotics is a Chinese drone manufacturer headquartered in Shenzhen, producing consumer and commercial UAS platforms. Along with DJI, Autel was added to the FCC Covered List on 22 December 2025 under Section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA, which prohibits new FCC equipment authorisations for foreign-produced UAS and critical components. In February 2026, Autel filed a lawsuit against the FCC challenging the Covered List decision, making it the first Chinese drone company to pursue legal action.

Three overlapping US regulatory actions effectively foreclose Autel from the American market. The FCC Covered List blocks new model certifications; FAR 52.240-1 bars ASDA-covered drones from all federal procurement contracts; and the Section 232 UAS Investigation, whose deadline expired in late March 2026 with no public decision, may still impose broad tariffs on imported drone hardware .

On 19 May 2026 Autel filed its reply in FCC ET Docket 26-23, making its most detailed legal challenge to date . The filing invokes the 2014 D.C. Circuit ruling in Ralls Corp. v. CFIUS to assert a Fifth Amendment due-process right to examine the classified evidence behind its Covered List designation — evidence Autel says it has never seen. The reply also attacks the Foundation for American Innovation's opposition brief for drawing on DJI-specific controversies to justify keeping Autel on the list, arguing that adverse findings against one company cannot automatically justify restrictions on another. Sworn declarations on Autel's data-handling practices, including AES-128/AES-256 encryption and local-storage-by-default, appear in the public record for the first time .

Autel's Ralls Corp. argument runs in parallel with the same argument in DJI's Ninth Circuit case (26-1029), creating a shared legal framework that could set binding precedent on how FAR the US government can restrict a company's market access without disclosing its national security reasoning. Existing Autel-authorised models remain legal to sell and operate in the US; the prohibitions apply only to new certifications and federal contracts.

How the World Sees Them

US regulators

FCC and DoD say the Covered List reflects genuine national security risk; both have declined to detail the classified evidence, arguing that disclosure itself would constitute a national security harm.

Autel Robotics

Autel argues it was swept up by DJI-specific allegations it had no chance to contest and that secret evidence combined with borrowed allegations fails basic due-process standards under Ralls Corp.

Legal observers

The Ralls Corp. argument, used now by both Autel and DJI, could force a structural change in how the US government handles national security restrictions on commercial technology — with implications well beyond drones.

US drone industry

Operators who switched to Autel as a DJI alternative post-ASDA find themselves in the same regulatory cul-de-sac; the parallel legal cases from both companies are the only path back to a competitive Chinese-made option.