Drone Ban Backlash Hits Farmers, First Responders

A major national-security ban is now colliding with a due-process fight that could decide how far federal regulators can go without showing the public the evidence.

Quick Take

DJI has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn the FCC’s decision placing certain DJI equipment on the agency’s “Covered List.”
The FCC action, issued December 22, 2025, effectively blocks new DJI models from being authorized for U.S. sale and import, while existing models can still circulate.
DJI argues the government failed to conduct a promised review process and that the company was denied basic procedural protections tied to Fifth Amendment due-process claims.
Farmers, first responders, small businesses, and a large U.S. commercial pilot community could feel the impact as new DJI products are kept off shelves.

What DJI is challenging, and why the case landed in the Ninth Circuit

DJI filed a petition for review on February 20, 2026, asking the Ninth Circuit to block and set aside the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to add DJI communications and video-surveillance equipment to the FCC “Covered List.” That list is designed for products deemed national-security risks under federal law. DJI’s filing seeks to vacate the ruling rather than merely tweak it, putting the FCC’s process under direct judicial scrutiny.

The practical outcome of the FCC designation is not a sweeping recall of every drone already in the country. Instead, the action targets authorization pathways that new products rely on, which can make it functionally impossible for DJI to bring new models to market in the U.S. That distinction matters for everyday operators who still see older DJI units available, yet cannot plan upgrades around newly released equipment lines.

How a 2024 “review window” turned into an automatic restriction

DJI’s dispute sits on top of a timeline that began accelerating in 2024, when Congress debated restrictions but did not ultimately enact an outright ban through the NDAA. Under that approach, DJI was given roughly a year for a formal review by an appropriate agency. According to the reporting summarized in the research, that review never occurred—yet the process still ended with automatic consequences that led to the FCC’s Covered List placement.

That sequence is central to DJI’s argument that the government imposed a major penalty without the kind of transparent, adversarial process Americans expect, especially when a regulator effectively wipes out future market access. Even for readers who strongly favor tough policy toward Beijing, the procedural question matters: when agencies can punish first and explain later, it creates a template that can be reused across industries, sometimes against domestic companies and consumers.

National security vs. public evidence: what’s missing from the public record

The FCC’s Covered List is supposed to reflect national-security threats, but the available sources in the research do not describe specific technical findings publicly tied to DJI’s products. DJI’s position is that the agency has not identified a particular threat associated with its equipment and that the decision lacked the evidence and procedural safeguards the company believes the law requires. The FCC will have an opportunity to respond as the case proceeds.

This is where the story becomes bigger than drones. The United States has legitimate reasons to be wary of Chinese technology, especially given China’s political system and the CCP’s reach into industry. At the same time, constitutional culture is built on the idea that government power should be constrained by process and accountable standards. If courts bless opaque blacklisting with minimal disclosure, future administrations could lean on that precedent broadly.

Real-world impacts for farmers, first responders, and small operators

DJI and industry coverage point to ripple effects across sectors that have relied on DJI platforms because they are widely used and deeply integrated into workflows. Agriculture operators use drones for mapping and field checks. Public safety and first responders use them for situational awareness. Small businesses and creative professionals use them for inspection, real estate, and production work. The research also references a large U.S. commercial drone pilot community that depends on predictable equipment pipelines.

Another policy wrinkle is that the Department of Commerce reportedly lifted a planned crackdown on Chinese drones, meaning some imports can continue under that lane—yet the FCC’s authorization barrier still blocks new DJI products from being sold like normal in the U.S. For consumers, this split approach can feel like Washington whiplash: one arm of government eases up while another quietly tightens the screws, and the public is left guessing which rules will dominate.