As of January 6, 2026, the sale of new DJI drones in the United States remains effectively banned following the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) decision on December 23, 2025, to add foreign-made drones and components to its “Covered List” due to national security risks.
This action, mandated by Section 1709 of the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), prohibits FCC approvals for new models from companies like DJI, the world’s leading drone manufacturer with about 70% global market share.
Existing DJI drones already approved and in use are unaffected, allowing owners to continue operations for purposes such as public safety, infrastructure inspections, agriculture, and videography.
However, the ban halts imports and sales of unapproved new products, severely impacting DJI’s U.S. presence and shifting demand toward domestic alternatives.
The ban stems from longstanding concerns over data security, potential surveillance, and ties to the Chinese government, including DJI’s 2020 Entity List placement for alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang and a 2022 Department of Defense designation linking it to China’s military (which DJI unsuccessfully contested).
No federal agency completed a required security review by the December 23 deadline, triggering the restrictions.
Regarding possible rescission, the policy is not permanent. Future approvals could occur if the Department of Defense (DoD) or Department of Homeland Security (DHS) certifies that specific DJI models or classes pose no unacceptable risk.
As of now, no such determinations have been made, though FCC Chair Brendan Carr’s upcoming speech at CES 2026 may address the issue.
DJI has actively worked to address U.S. government concerns, emphasizing that its products are secure and backed by independent audits, code reviews, and government testing.
In early December 2025, the company sent letters to U.S. leaders, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, offering full transparency, product reviews, and cooperation to resolve security issues.
DJI argues the ban lacks evidence and reflects protectionism rather than genuine threats, while reaffirming its commitment to the U.S. market.
Despite these efforts, no clear pathway for resolution has been provided, leaving the future uncertain amid ongoing geopolitical tensions.