The Federal Communications Commission added all foreign-manufactured drones and critical components to its Covered List on 22 December 2025, invoking Section 1709 of the FY25 National Defence Authorisation Act1. DJI and Autel Robotics — which together account for the majority of US commercial drone sales — can no longer receive equipment authorisation for new products on the American market.
The Commerce Department had been developing separate restrictions under its own authority but withdrew them in January 2026, concluding the FCC action was sufficient2. The consolidation avoided competing regulatory frameworks but introduced a transition gap: the ban targets new certifications, not existing inventory. Drones already in retail and distributor channels remain legal to sell and operate. The practical market closure begins when shelf stock depletes — a window measured in months, not years, given DJI's inventory turnover rates.
DJI holds an estimated 70–80% of the global consumer and commercial drone market and has built an integrated hardware-software ecosystem no single US manufacturer replicates. For agricultural surveyors, infrastructure inspectors, emergency responders, and filmmakers who depend on DJI products, the ban removes their primary supplier without a domestic alternative at comparable price or capability. Industry groups warned of higher costs and reduced functionality for smaller operators3.
The regulatory rationale centres on supply chain security. Chinese-manufactured drones transmit flight telemetry and sensor data that, under China's 2017 National Intelligence Law, could be compelled for state intelligence purposes. DJI has consistently denied any unauthorised data exfiltration and offers local data processing modes in its products4. The FCC did not adjudicate the technical dispute — it applied a supply chain exclusion framework that treats manufacturing origin as a proxy for risk, the same logic used against Huawei's telecommunications equipment in 2019. The approach is efficient from a regulatory standpoint but imposes real costs on an American drone sector that had no adequate domestic substitute ready at the point of implementation.
