If DJI and Autel Robotics drones truly pose an immediate national security threat, then why are thousands of them still flying over America every single day?
That’s the uncomfortable question now being thrown directly at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as the agency’s public comment window on foreign-made drones officially closes.
In a detailed filing, the Drone Service Provider’s Alliance (DSPA) argues that Washington’s current approach to DJI and Autel drones contains a major contradiction: regulators say the risks are serious enough to justify sweeping restrictions, but apparently not serious enough to ground existing fleets already embedded across public safety, infrastructure, agriculture, and commercial operations nationwide.
It’s worth noting that DSPA is not a tiny advocacy organization speaking only for hobbyists. The alliance represents more than 33,000 remote pilots, including Part 107 operators, inspection companies, mapping firms, utility contractors, emergency-response providers, agricultural service companies, construction documentation specialists, media operators, and public safety support providers. In other words, the people actually flying drones in the field.
That distinction matters because much of the public debate around the FCC’s actions has been dominated by national security groups, policymakers, domestic manufacturers, and industry trade associations focused on boosting American drone production.
DSPA’s filing essentially says: regulators are hearing plenty from Washington policy circles, but not enough from the operators whose livelihoods depend on these aircraft. And the group’s core argument is surprisingly nuanced.
If DJI and Autel drones truly represent an immediate, unavoidable threat in every scenario, then the logical response would have been the immediate grounding of all affected aircraft. But that never happened. Existing fleets are still flying legally across public safety departments, infrastructure agencies, farms, inspection companies, construction firms, and emergency-response operations nationwide.
And according to DSPA, that creates a major problem for the FCC’s broader argument. “The Commission cannot have it both ways,” the filing says in one of its sharpest passages. Either these drones are categorically unsafe in all operational contexts, or risk actually varies depending on how, where, and why they’re being used.
That distinction matters enormously because the FCC’s current proceeding could ultimately shape the future of DJI and Autel drones throughout the US market. Regulators and national security advocates have repeatedly raised concerns involving cybersecurity vulnerabilities, data collection, firmware control, cloud connectivity, and the possibility that Chinese companies could be compelled to cooperate with Beijing under Chinese law.
DSPA agrees that those concerns deserve serious attention. But the alliance argues the FCC is making a critical mistake by treating every foreign-made drone, every foreign-made component, and every operational use case as though they all carry identical levels of risk. And that’s where the filing becomes especially interesting.
DSPA is not defending DJI or Autel unconditionally. In fact, the organization repeatedly acknowledges that cybersecurity and national security risks involving foreign drone manufacturers are legitimate. Instead, the alliance says regulators are skipping over the harder, but more important, question: What exactly makes a drone dangerous?
Is it the country where it was assembled? The software stack? The cloud connection? The firmware update system? The mission profile? The type of data being collected? Is the drone online or offline? Whether it’s flying near critical infrastructure or simply photographing a roof inspection?
According to DSPA, the FCC has not adequately answered those questions before moving toward broad restrictions. “If the concern is cloud connectivity, the framework should address cloud connectivity,” the filing argues. “If the concern is firmware update control, the framework should address firmware provenance.”
That logic forms the backbone of DSPA’s entire argument: cybersecurity risk is not binary. A drone flying offline to inspect farmland or map a construction site does not necessarily present the same level of risk as a cloud-connected drone operating near sensitive infrastructure.
And importantly, DSPA argues that domestic drones can also contain serious cybersecurity weaknesses. The filing warns that insecure firmware updates, weak encryption, poor vulnerability management, uncontrolled cloud dependencies, or inadequate authentication systems could create dangerous vulnerabilities even on US-made aircraft.
In other words, the alliance says national security cannot simply be reduced to “Chinese drone bad, American drone good.”
Instead of blanket bans, DSPA wants the FCC to create what it repeatedly calls a “risk-appropriate framework.” That framework would include cybersecurity standards for all drones regardless of origin, mission-based risk categories, local-only data storage options, cloud-disablement controls, firmware verification requirements, audit logging, vulnerability disclosure obligations, and restrictions tailored specifically to high-risk operations.
The alliance also wants regulators to distinguish between adversarial supply chains and allied countries instead of lumping all foreign production together.
But beyond the policy details, DSPA’s filing repeatedly returns to something much more practical: America’s drone industry already runs heavily on DJI. According to survey data cited throughout the filing, 96.7% of drone operators currently use DJI drones, while seven in ten operators run fleets composed entirely of DJI aircraft.
Among public safety agencies, the dependence is even more striking. The filing says 97% of surveyed public safety users currently operate DJI drones.
That reliance exists for a simple reason: DJI dominates the market on affordability, reliability, battery availability, software integration, sensor ecosystems, and ease of use. And according to DSPA, Washington may be underestimating how disruptive replacing those systems would actually be.
The filing cites estimates suggesting fleet replacement costs for state agencies alone could range from roughly $10 million to $50 million nationally, with even higher figures possible once local agencies are included. Those figures also don’t include retraining, software migration, workflow redevelopment, certification, operational downtime, and productivity losses.
For small businesses, the consequences could become existential. DSPA repeatedly emphasizes that America’s commercial drone industry is not dominated by giant corporations. It is overwhelmingly built on small operators, sole proprietors, mapping companies, roof inspectors, agricultural service providers, real estate photographers, infrastructure inspectors, utility contractors, and emergency-response specialists.
Many of those companies built entire business models around DJI platforms because they were affordable and widely supported. And that’s why the alliance says claims that “existing drones are not grounded” are technically true but practically misleading.
A drone doesn’t need to be physically confiscated to become commercially useless. If federal funding rules, procurement standards, insurance policies, or customer requirements effectively push DJI systems out of public-sector and infrastructure work, operators could suddenly find themselves owning perfectly legal aircraft that clients no longer want them to use.
Survey data cited in the filing suggests that pain may already be starting. More than 60% of operators reported supply shortages, higher prices, or parts-access problems linked to growing restrictions and uncertainty surrounding DJI. Meanwhile, nearly 24% of respondents said they would likely shut down their drone-related business if a broad DJI ban were implemented.
The filing also warns about public safety consequences. Emergency responders dealing with floods, wildfires, landslides, bridge collapses, or search-and-rescue operations cannot always wait for waiver approvals, replacement procurement cycles, or federal reimbursement clarifications. DSPA argues that uncertainty itself may already be creating hesitation around drone deployments tied to federally reimbursable disasters.
And then there’s the workforce problem. The alliance points out that more than 80% of current drone operators learned to fly using DJI products. Educational users overwhelmingly told surveyors that affordable consumer drones are essential for training the next generation of pilots.
That creates an uncomfortable tension for US policymakers. Washington wants a stronger domestic drone industry. But at the same time, the country’s current drone ecosystem — from entry-level training to professional commercial operations — remains deeply dependent on Chinese-made platforms.
Now that the FCC’s public comment period has closed, regulators must decide what happens next. But DSPA’s filing leaves behind a question that may become increasingly difficult for policymakers to answer: If DJI drones truly present an immediate, unavoidable danger in every operational context, why are they still flying?
More: FCC commissioner defends blacklisting foreign drones over security fears
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Comments