FCC Adds All Foreign Drones to Covered List
The FCC’s Public Notice released yesterday (12/22/2025), adding all foreign made drones and components to the FCC's Covered List, marks a tremendous step to make America’s drone operations self-reliant and secure. The Trump Administration is laying the groundwork for a robust, independent industrial base that will serve the nation well in the long run. However, as with any major policy shift, the transition from broad intent to specific enforcement has generated a series of unresolved questions that industry stakeholders must now navigate.
The White House National Security Determination (NSD) underpinning the Public Notice is explicit: "UAS and UAS Critical Components must be produced in the U.S." While this is a clear indication of the administration's desired end-state, an NSD is the start, not the end, of the policy-process. The full consequences will not be felt for months, and the ultimate impact depends entirely on how current conflicting language is resolved. Finally, it is critical to remember that the White House and FCC largely push enforcement out to CBP for importation. As a result, the intent behind guidance will potentially get lost, with the stated language in policy documents controlling, because people on the ground want to make sure they are following the letter of the law.
Here are the critical areas of uncertainty that operators and manufacturers must monitor.
1. The Scope: Targeting China - By Targeting Everyone
While the policy is clearly aimed at curbing Chinese dominance, the binding guidance applies to all internationally made drones and drone parts. If read expansively, this language closes the door to all international hardware—not just from adversaries, but from allies as well. On one hand, this makes a great deal of sense, DJI and other Chinese companies have been aggressively white-labeling and obfuscating ownership of companies for a long time. However, broad actions like this are definitionally subject to problems around the margins.
This potentially bars emerging Canadian models that are coming online now and also bars Ukrainian platforms in the future, which are poised to become market leaders in cost and quality.
While this restriction effectively prevents "white-labeling" (rebranding foreign tech as domestic), it creates immediate sourcing crises for components where a domestic market simply does not exist yet—most notably, batteries. It is unclear where the definition of UAS Components ends - are large batteries that go into UAS, but which have a range of other uses allowed to be permitted?
Further, the list of covered 'UAS Critical Components' is fairly expansive: Data transmission devices - Communications systems - Flight controllers - Ground control stations and UAS controllers - Navigation systems - Sensors and Cameras - Batteries and Battery Management Systems - Motors.
While it is easy to envision how these could be applied narrowly in a common-sense way, it is not impossible to envision a far broader interpretation: e.g. does this address sensors, cameras, and batteries with drone-affiliated branding? Or the far more expansive list of components which have other uses but could be affixed to a drone? Hard to see that not leading to some enforcement gaps or unintended burdens on other sectors. Also, how far down the sub component list will this go?
2. The Conflict: Binding Orders vs. Press Releases
A significant regulatory contradiction has emerged regarding the sale and marketing of existing inventory.
The Binding Policy: The FCC’s October Report (FCC 25-71A) was a binding policy determination. It stated clearly that sale and marketing would be barred for all Covered equipment, even those previously authorized. (See FCC 25-71A page 7 ¶ 13 “The Commission also adopts a procedure to limit previously granted authorizations of covered equipment to prohibit the continued importation and marketing of such equipment[,]” and; see page 18 ¶32, page 23 ¶42, and page 24 ¶44).
The Unofficial Announcement: Conversely, yesterday’s press release (marked as an "unofficial announcement of Commission action") states that domestic sale and marketing will be permitted: "This update to the Covered List does not prohibit the import, sale, or use of any existing device models the FCC previously authorized." The formal portions of the Public Notice do not explicitly address this question.
While private ownership is clearly protected and new imports are clearly barred, the middle ground—marketing and selling existing stock—is in legal limbo. The FCC can resolve this by issuing a follow-on report, but until then, it is unclear whether we should anticipate guidance modifying the October Report.
3. The "Game of Telephone": Enforcement at the Border
Policy is written in Washington, but it is interpreted at the port of entry. We are witnessing a massive "game of telephone": intent flows from the White House to the FCC, into print, to Customs officials, and finally to individual agents inspecting packages.
This will result in varied outcomes. The biggest variable is how expansively "UAS parts" will be interpreted by individual agents. As currently stated, the ban covers any foreign UAS part. While smuggling and mislabeling remain barriers to total enforcement, legitimate businesses should expect sourcing challenges at some point in the future for some period of time (boy, that’s helpful guidance from me, isn’t it?), as packages are stopped inconsistently, based on the discretion of local agents.
4. The Impact on Agricultural Operations
While the agricultural sector has seen a lot of lax enforcement, under registration, and non compliance, there is good reason to expect that we will feel this disproportionately.
First, it is self-evidently harder to smuggle a 200 lbs drone than a 4 lbs drone into the country - same is true for physically larger parts.
Second, the determination reiterates a focus on security for upcoming major events like the World Cup and the Olympics. This is particularly significant for the agricultural sector. Pressure will increase for state and local law enforcement to audit drone operations, supported by new detection and monitoring devices.
Agricultural drones, which conduct highly visible, consistent, and repetitive operations, will likely be the first to be evaluated. Compared to transient photography drones or deer recovery operations, agricultural drones are easy targets for law enforcement officials eager to demonstrate compliance to senior leadership.
5. Sourcing and Exemptions
There is a mechanism for exemptions on a case-by-case basis, allowing individual companies to import necessary products. However, the implementation details remain opaque. If the process is rigid or slow, American manufacturers and operators may be deprived of key components for an extended period, stifling domestic innovation in the very sector the government hopes to grow.
The Outlook
This transition will not happen overnight. Government bureaucracies move at their own pace, but they can be highly efficient when motivated. If you do not feel the impact in three months, it does not mean the policy has failed; it means the machinery is still spinning up.
Ultimately, this is the right step for the nation. But we must prepare for a period of significant discomfort as the supply chain realigns and the regulatory language catches up to the operational reality.