DJI is pushing back against what it says is an unjust US ban effort. The world’s biggest drone maker has filed an appeal after a federal court upheld the Pentagon’s “Chinese Military Company” label — a decision that keeps DJI on a blacklist threatening its access to government contracts and US markets.
The appeal follows last month’s ruling by US District Judge Paul Friedman, who upheld the Department of Defense’s (DoD) decision to include DJI on its Section 1260H list, a roster of companies the Pentagon alleges are linked to China’s military-industrial complex.
For DJI, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Being on that list doesn’t amount to an outright ban, but it has already cut off federal contracts, chilled private partnerships, and cast a long shadow over its US operations, which represent one of its largest global markets.
Court ruling: A partial victory for DJI
While Judge Friedman rejected DJI’s lawsuit in late September, the company insists the court’s findings validated much of its position.
In a detailed 49-page opinion, the judge dismissed most of the Pentagon’s claims, finding no evidence that DJI is owned or controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, affiliated with China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, or operating from a “military-civil fusion” industrial zone.
That, DJI argues, is a significant point of vindication. “The Court affirmatively rejected most of DoD’s allegations,” the company noted, emphasizing that even a US federal court has confirmed DJI is not part of China’s military apparatus.
But the judge upheld the listing on two narrow grounds.
First, DJI’s recognition as a National Enterprise Technology Center (NETC) — a Chinese government award for companies with strong innovation capabilities — was viewed as evidence that DJI receives some form of government assistance. That, according to the court, was sufficient under Section 1260H to justify its inclusion on the list.
Second, the court cited the “substantial dual-use applications” of DJI drones — meaning they could serve both civilian and military purposes — as a reason for the Pentagon to classify the company within China’s defense industrial base.
DJI disputes both rationales, stressing that NETC status doesn’t imply military ties, and that dual-use potential is common among civilian technologies, from smartphones to GPS systems.
“We respect the Court’s process but are disappointed that the designation remains in place despite findings that reject the core of the DoD’s allegations,” said Adam Welsh, spokesperson for DJI. “We will continue to defend the integrity of our company as the findings reaffirm what we have maintained all along — that DJI operates independently, has no government or military affiliation, and is committed to the responsible development of drone technology.”
New: DJI’s latest move: Local-first drone management for data security
From lawsuit to appeal: How the fight began
DJI’s legal battle with the Pentagon began in October 2024, when it filed a lawsuit accusing the Defense Department of acting “unlawfully and arbitrarily.” The company argued that the “Chinese Military Company” label was based on political suspicion, not evidence, and that the listing had unfairly tarnished its reputation.
DJI also claimed selective enforcement, pointing out that many Western and Chinese companies with similar government ties — such as Volkswagen China and Nokia Bell — were never blacklisted.
But Judge Friedman’s ruling gave the Pentagon broad latitude to decide who goes on the list. Even if two companies receive similar government designations, the court said, the DoD has discretion to include one and not the other.
That legal leeway proved fatal to DJI’s case.
Still, the company sees grounds for appeal. Its latest filing with the DC Circuit argues that the court’s limited rationale — NETC status and dual-use technology — is too thin to justify a military designation, especially after the judge rejected all claims of ownership, control, or direct military links.
DJI’s stance: ‘We’ve never built for combat’
DJI maintains that it has never designed, manufactured, or marketed drones for combat use. The company has long been outspoken against militarization, publicly denouncing the use of its products in warfare as early as 2022.
It also touts safeguards such as geofencing technology, which prevents flights near restricted zones, and end-user agreements that prohibit the use of DJI drones for military purposes.
“DJI was the first drone company to publicly denounce and actively discourage the combat use of its products, and it has never manufactured military equipment nor marketed drones for combat,” the company reiterated in its latest statement.
Welsh added that DJI will continue strengthening internal controls to ensure its drones are used responsibly, including updating its software restrictions and compliance systems.
Impact on US drone pilots
For now, DJI drones remain legal in the United States. Pilots can still buy and fly innovative aerial cameras like the DJI Flip, Air 3S, or Mavic 4 Pro for commercial and recreational use.
But the Pentagon’s listing continues to ripple through the industry. Starting in 2026, US federal agencies will be barred from purchasing DJI drones, and the stigma associated with the label has already pushed some private partners away.
Many drone pilots also worry about the future availability of DJI’s newest products. Flagship models like the Mavic 4 Pro and Mini 5 Pro launched globally but never reached US shelves through official channels — a sign of DJI quietly pulling back amid mounting regulatory uncertainty.
The fear is not just about future purchases. Restrictions from other US agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or the Commerce Department, could eventually tighten further, impacting software updates, repair parts, or import permissions for DJI products already in the market.
Related: New FCC crackdown could make this your last chance for a DJI drone
In the end, the DJI case is part of a larger geopolitical and technological standoff between Washington and Beijing. Over the past few years, the US has ramped up restrictions on Chinese tech firms, from Huawei and ZTE to battery makers like CATL and LiDAR companies like Hesai Group, which recently lost a similar lawsuit against the Pentagon.
Officials cite national security concerns, but critics say many designations are based on broad assumptions about China’s “military-civil fusion” strategy — a policy encouraging collaboration between civilian industries and the military. For DJI, that means navigating a complex landscape where its technology — admired by filmmakers, farmers, and first responders — is increasingly caught in the crossfire of global politics.
What happens next
By filing its appeal with the DC Circuit Court, DJI is taking its case to the next legal level. The court will now review whether the Pentagon’s decision and the District Court’s reasoning were consistent with administrative law and due process. The process could take months, but the outcome will be closely watched, not only by drone pilots but also by tech companies and policymakers.
If DJI wins, the case could set a precedent limiting how freely US agencies can blacklist companies under Section 1260H. If it loses, the Pentagon’s power to restrict Chinese-linked firms will grow stronger, potentially reshaping the US drone market for years.
Either way, DJI’s appeal signals that the company isn’t ready to accept the label — or the narrative — that ties it to China’s military.
“DJI’s success is built on relentless innovation,” the company says. “We remain committed to serving our US customers and partners, and we call for fair competition in the United States.”
More: DJI’s first 360-degree camera already has a huge discount
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Comments