Remix.run Logo
Espressosaurus 13 hours ago

"What does this mean?

• 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.

• This action does not affect any previously-purchased drone. Consumers can continue to use any drone they have already lawfully purchased or acquired."

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.

neuronexmachina 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

Espressosaurus 9 hours ago | parent [-]

It bans the import, but not sale of models the FCC has previously approved.

CGamesPlay 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Your originally quoted text explicitly disagrees with you: "This update to the Covered List does not prohibit the import, sale, or use of any existing device models the FCC previously authorized."

Espressosaurus 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Mea culpa. I've been reading some reporting earlier in the day. Trying to find verification for the claims I see that it was wrong.

Which is better than it could be, all things considered.

bambax 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

sandworm101 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>> banning future drones

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.

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.

bell-cot 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The goal (assuming rational policy) is improving security over time.

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.

takoid 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The grandfathering clause is the tell. If these drones were an active national security threat, they wouldn't let civilians keep flying them.

This looks like industrial policy masquerading as defense in order to clear the board for domestic manufacturers just as the Pentagon starts handing out contracts to politically connected players.

Case in point: Unusual Machines just secured a massive Army contract for drone motors. Their advisor and major shareholder? Donald Trump Jr. [0]. Banning the import of foreign "critical components" conveniently forces the market into their funnel.

[0] https://www.ft.com/content/4cedc140-4a02-4ab6-9f78-93dd8c51a...

asah 3 hours ago | parent [-]

agree re policy, but technically... it's possible that today's drones are OK but they're worried about future drones including something new...

close04 an hour ago | parent [-]

If that was the reason, a case by case analysis would make more sense than blanket ban. There’s no plausible technical explanation for this that doesn’t apply to any other devices, components, or software. If it could be made dangerous in theory then preemptively assume it will maybe at some point and ban it.

This is from the same people who brought you “let’s break all your encryption because you might become a criminal in the future”.

kortilla 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

palmotea 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Exactly, it's about supply chains. Banning existing drones with no replacements on offer would be unnecessarily disruptive.

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.

zarzavat 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

flessner 9 hours ago | parent [-]

That is exactly what you never want to do under protectionist policies. Domestic producers are shielded from Chinese competitors. This means they are under less pressure to reduce prices and innovate.

I wouldn't read too much into the national security justification. It's a political argument to an economic policy.

jepj57 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The national security justification is that we need expertise building/designing drones. We won't get that if we allow China to out-compete domestic manufacturers.

8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
guerrilla 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

isodev 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

pbhjpbhj 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Presumably it moves some stock prices or helps a company who bought a ticket/altcoin from Trump. I expect it achieves the intended effect.

j16sdiz 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well.. DJI have on-the-fly no fly zone update, and newer model can communicate via satellite.

That's worse if you believe there are possibility of war...

vasco 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Attack vector: drone needs to get out of a case, backpack or closet, out of the window and fly somewhere to do something.

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.

mjevans 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Or even just 'halt and catch fire'.

Heck even a targeted but small percent increase in sporadic behavior for targets of high value might be a worthy harassment tactic.

guerrilla 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, all your HVAC systems and even nuclear power plants are online. Don't give me this BS about kiddy drones.

drstewart 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Oh no, what will we do without cheap Chinese drones spying on us

b00ty4breakfast 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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)

Espressosaurus 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If it was phased in and didn't specifically include allied country imports, I could believe that.

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.

We'll get to pay much higher prices for much worse products while we do so.

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.

neuronexmachina 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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: https://bluelist.appsplatformportals.us/Cleared-List/

padjo 9 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s only crazy if you think Europe and the US are still allies. That simply isn’t the case anymore. The US is in its own now.

tremon 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Not completely on its own, at least they still have Russia on their side (or rather the other way around).

MrMorden 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The primary goal of the Trump administration is to destroy American manufacturing. They don't want factories, hence all the tariffs.

palmotea 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> The primary goal of the Trump administration is to destroy American manufacturing. They don't want factories, hence all the tariffs.

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).

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 new domestic manufacturing in strategic industries.

AnthonyMouse 6 hours ago | parent [-]

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 even more than that, 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".

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.

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.

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?

disgruntledphd2 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> 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.

Deficits do only sortof matter, but you people (I don't live in the US) are wildly undertaxed by big economy standards, and tax increases at the higher end could solve a lot of your fiscal problems.

nostrademons 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

hn_throwaway_99 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> some US manufacturer that slipped a few thousand dollars

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.

sobriquet9 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Rotor Riot sells a flight controller made in USA. Donald Trump Jr. is on the advisory board of Unusual Machines that owns Rotor Riot.

givemeethekeys 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Does that mean that DJI can continue to sell models that they've already been selling in the US?

cyberax 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

jfengel 3 hours ago | parent [-]

So now in addition to snuggling fentanyl they'll also be smuggling the drones. Twofer.