DJI has taken its campaign against the Federal Communications Commission’s drone restrictions directly to the agency’s leadership, formally submitting an independent cybersecurity assessment that found no evidence supporting many of the security concerns long cited against the company.
DJI representatives recently met with Adam Chan, Senior National Security Counsel to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, and Scott Noveck from the FCC’s Office of General Counsel. During the meeting, DJI discussed the findings of an extensive security assessment conducted by US-based cybersecurity firm OnDefend and provided the report to agency staff.
The filing marks the latest development in what has become one of the most consequential regulatory battles in the history of the US drone industry. While the FCC continues reviewing DJI’s challenge to its placement on the Covered List, the agency is simultaneously facing growing criticism from drone operators, public safety organizations, businesses, and hobbyists who argue the restrictions are harming American users without publicly presented technical evidence.
In the filing, DJI highlighted OnDefend’s conclusion that a five-month examination of the DJI Air 3S and Matrice 4E ecosystems “identified no evidence of hidden backdoors, no data transmissions outside the United States, and no viable pathways for hijacking or weaponization.” DJI noted that it initially did not believe an ex parte filing was necessary but agreed to submit the report at the request of FCC staff.
Security report targets core concerns behind the ban
The OnDefend assessment has become central to DJI’s argument that the security rationale behind its FCC designation lacks technical support.
Conducted between October 2025 and March 2026, the review examined both consumer and enterprise drone platforms, including aircraft, controllers, firmware, mobile applications, radio communications, and supporting infrastructure. The cybersecurity firm purchased consumer units through normal retail channels and tested enterprise hardware from existing dealer inventory in an effort to replicate real-world conditions. The assessment included hardware teardowns, software analysis, network traffic monitoring, radio-frequency testing, supply-chain verification, and attempts to compromise or manipulate the systems.
According to the report, investigators found:
- No evidence of hidden backdoors or unauthorized remote-access mechanisms.
- No evidence that tested DJI applications transmitted data outside the United States.
- No viable pathways for hijacking or weaponizing the tested systems.
- No unexplained radio-frequency emissions.
- No signs of supply-chain tampering or unauthorized hardware modifications.
- Zero critical, high, or medium-risk vulnerabilities during testing.
The report did identify several low-risk findings and observations, but OnDefend concluded that none represented a realistic threat to safe operations or widespread data exposure. DJI has said mitigation measures are already underway.
Perhaps most notably, the audit specifically examined three concerns that have repeatedly surfaced in Washington’s debate over Chinese-made drones: potential foreign data transmission, hidden access mechanisms, and the possibility of remote manipulation or weaponization. OnDefend reported finding no evidence supporting any of those claims in the systems it tested.
A debate that extends beyond cybersecurity
The release of the report came against the backdrop of sweeping FCC action taken in December 2025, when the commission added foreign-made drones and critical drone components to the Covered List following a national security determination from the executive branch. The decision effectively prevented new DJI products from receiving the authorizations required for importation and sale in the United States, although existing products remain operational and can continue to be used.
New: DJI’s cheapest drone is even cheaper right now
Supporters of the restrictions argue that foreign-manufactured drones present broader national security concerns, including surveillance risks, supply-chain vulnerabilities, and strategic dependence on overseas manufacturers. FCC documents have referenced concerns that foreign-produced unmanned aircraft systems could potentially enable surveillance, data collection, unauthorized access, or disruption through software-based mechanisms.
DJI, however, has consistently argued that no public technical evidence has been presented to justify its treatment and that the company’s products have undergone years of scrutiny by government agencies, cybersecurity researchers, and independent evaluators.
The OnDefend report is the strongest technical evidence DJI has introduced recently in support of that argument.
FCC faces mounting backlash
The FCC’s handling of the issue has also generated growing backlash from within the drone community.
In recent weeks, thousands of public comments have been submitted as part of DJI’s challenge to its Covered List designation. Industry groups, drone pilots, agricultural operators, public safety departments, infrastructure inspectors, photographers, and small businesses have urged regulators to reconsider restrictions that could limit access to what remains the dominant drone ecosystem in the United States.
Many commenters have argued that the FCC’s actions risk increasing costs for American operators while reducing access to proven technologies used in emergency response, agriculture, mapping, construction, and media production. Others have questioned why broad restrictions were implemented before publicly available technical findings demonstrating actual security vulnerabilities.
That criticism has intensified following publication of the OnDefend assessment, which many DJI supporters see as directly challenging the assumptions underlying the ban.
For instance, Colorado photographer and filmmaker Jason Hatfield, whose clients include Colorado Tourism, Netflix productions, and Atlas Obscura, has told the FCC that he supports reasonable drone regulations backed by clear evidence of a security threat. Referring to the recent OnDefend audit, he has questioned why the government moved forward with restrictions before completing the review process designed to assess the products. According to Hatfield, the consequences are being felt not just by drone manufacturers but by thousands of small businesses and organizations that rely on affordable, capable aerial imaging tools to remain competitive.
At the same time, opponents of DJI maintain that cybersecurity testing alone may not address larger geopolitical and supply-chain concerns that motivated the government’s actions in the first place. Some policymakers have increasingly shifted the debate away from software vulnerabilities and toward questions of manufacturing origin, strategic dependency, and long-term industrial policy.
What happens next?
DJI’s decision to personally present the report to FCC officials signals that the company intends to keep pushing its case at every available level.
The newly disclosed meeting with Chairman Carr’s office demonstrates that the findings are now formally part of the FCC record as regulators continue evaluating DJI’s petition. Whether the report ultimately changes the agency’s position remains unclear.
What is clear is that the battle has evolved far beyond a simple product review. DJI now has an independent US cybersecurity assessment that found no evidence of backdoors, foreign data transmission, or practical pathways for hijacking the tested systems. The FCC, meanwhile, continues to defend a policy rooted in broader national security concerns surrounding foreign-made drones.
As the review moves forward, the central question may no longer be whether DJI’s products can withstand technical scrutiny. The question increasingly appears to be whether cybersecurity findings alone are enough to overcome wider concerns about supply chains, industrial strategy, and national security policy.
More: DJI unveils new signal-boosting O4 Ground Station for drones
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Comments