FCC Takes Significant Anticipatory Step Against DJI and Autel
Two days ago, the FCC released a Second Report and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) focused on the rules around entities that are currently on their Covered List. While not explicitly addressing DJI and Autel (which will likely be added on December 23, 2025 via the NDAA’s Poison Pill provision), it is difficult to interpret the Second Report and FNPRM’s timing and focus as coincidental, as all of the hardware manufacturers on the covered list have been in place since 2022 and the comment period will close around December 15, giving the FCC time to publish a third report.
The Second Report and FNPRM focus on transmitters, marketing (which includes sales), and the scope of their authority, all of which point to a conscientious effort to square-away questions that will be raised by consumer-oriented drones. Historically, the Covered List has focused on equipment that is directly integrated into national infrastructure or used by the U.S. Government or government contractors. While the remit of the Covered List is broader in theory (allowing the addition of entities such as DJI and Autel), many of the challenges addressed in the Second Report are far more applicable for DJI and Autel products sold on the open market than telecoms equipment procured by the government or government contractors.
ADI appreciates the FCC raising the issue of pass-through companies and intermediaries being abused to side-step proposed restrictions (such as Anzu Robotics). As discussed in one of ADI’s BIS comments earlier this year, the issue of surreptitious pass-through companies and obfuscated ownership continues to grow in the ag-drone space.
Critically, the Second Report puts to rest concerns about the FCC banning privately owned drones, while granting itself the authority to bar the domestic marketing and sale of any drone made by a Covered Entity, including those already authorized (e.g. DJI T-40’s may not be allowed to be sold, but those already in private hands could still be operated). In good news for the ag-drone industry, the determination to protect private ownership was expressed in multiple places. This clarifies that the FCC is dedicated to removing Covered Equipment from the market without forcing it out of private hands.
The Second Report also mirrored ADI’s longstanding concern that obsolescence is not an adequate process to remove Covered Equipment from the market, given its long life-cycle. This aligns with ADI’s legislative objective to establish a buy-back program offering rebates towards purchasing American agricultural drones in exchange for turning in Covered drones.
The Second FNPRM, part of the same document, requests feedback on a number of points, but most critically for our sector (in no particular order):
How should parts made by Covered Entities which are sub-components in equipment made by non-Covered Entities be treated?
Should specific sub-components, such as transmitters, GPS, etc. made by any company under the control of a foreign adversary nation (e.g. any Chinese companies) be barred outright?
Should a transition period be put in place, and how long should it be?
Conclusion
While none of the language in the report is explicitly tailored to DJI or Autel, it is difficult to imagine a determination and FNPRM better tailored to prepare the FCC to start aggressively restricting DJI and Autel once they are added to the list. This is compounded by the fact that Brendan Carr, the FCC’s Chairman, was one of the first senior government figures to voice concerns about DJI’s national security threats in particular during the first Trump administration.
DJI did not appear to be discussed at the recent trade summit between President Trump and President Xi. That, combined with DJI’s decision to ‘temporarily’ withdraw from the US market due to tariff uncertainty, suggests that DJI will likely respond to their placement on the Covered List by permanently withdrawing support and parts sales in the U.S. Notably, the FCC seems to be pursuing rules that would potentially bar the marketing and sale of parts for repair as well as full equipment. Critically, the retroactive ban of approved equipment is strongly indicated but technically will need to be done on a case-by-case basis after DJI and Autel are added.
As a result, it is more important than ever that the government supports the transition to safe and reliable American and allied UAS companies, especially in the agricultural sector. A critical step in that process is by supporting legislation such as ADI’s buyback program and research grant project, to help our domestic drone industry advance as quickly as possible.