Dispelling Misinformation: The Truth About the Proposed DJI Drone Ban

As the debate surrounding the potential ban on DJI drones continues to unfold, it's crucial to separate fact from fiction. With the fluidity and volatile nature of this subject, it's essential to provide accurate and up-to-date information. Vic Moss did just that in an article for the DSP Alliance to address common misconceptions and provide clarity on the current state of affairs.

No Immediate Ban on DJI Drones

One of the most prevalent fallacies circulating is that DJI drones will be banned outright. However, as Moss points out, “The odds of an outright ban are extremely small. Not impossible, but remote as best.” The current language of the Countering CCP Drones Act (CCCPDA) would only require the FCC to deny future DJI license requests, not revoke existing ones.


DJI Drones Will Not Be Bricked

Another common misconception is that DJI drones will be “bricked” if the CCCPDA becomes law. Moss clarifies, “Even if the long shot of the FCC revoking current DJI licenses were to happen, that doesn't mean your drone will be bricked.” He explains that the only way for drones to be bricked would be for DJI to send a command, which is highly unlikely.

The Legislative Process

Many people mistakenly believe that since the House passed their version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) containing the CCCPDA language, it has become law. However, as Moss explains, “That's not how D.C. works.” The bill still needs to go through the Senate, a Congressional conference committee, and receive a Presidential signature before becoming law.

Impact DJI Drone Ban Beyond DJI Drones

While the CCCPDA language primarily targets DJI, it also includes the phrase “or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof.” This means that depending on how “subsidiary or affiliate” is defined, it could potentially impact other Chinese drone manufacturers such as Anzu or Specta.

No Tariff Increase in CCCPDA

Contrary to some rumors, the CCCPDA language does not include provisions for increasing tariffs on Chinese drones. Moss clarifies that people are confusing the language in the Drones for First Responders Act (DFR) with the NDAA language. The DFR is a separate bill that has not yet been introduced.

Questioning the Security Concerns

Moss raises an important point regarding the security concerns surrounding DJI drones. He questions, “If there was a true security issue, then we need an immediate ban. Now!” The fact that there seems to be no urgency in implementing a ban suggests that the security concerns may not be as severe as claimed.

As the situation continues to evolve, it's crucial to stay informed and rely on accurate information. Misinformation can cause great damage to both the and hobby. By dispelling common fallacies and providing clarity on the current state of affairs, we can engage in a more productive dialogue and make informed decisions moving forward.

Dispelling Misinformation: The Truth About the Proposed DJI Drone Ban
Dispelling Misinformation: The Truth About the Proposed DJI Drone Ban

DroneXL's Take on DJI Drone Ban

The proposed ban on DJI drones has far-reaching implications for the drone industry as a whole. While security concerns should always be taken seriously, it's essential to approach the issue with a balanced perspective. The lack of urgency in implementing an immediate ban raises questions about the severity of the alleged security risks.

Furthermore, the potential impact on other Chinese drone manufacturers highlights the need for clear definitions and careful consideration of the language used in any proposed legislation. As the situation continues to unfold, it's crucial for the drone community to stay informed, engage in constructive dialogue, and advocate for policies that promote innovation and growth in the industry while addressing legitimate security concerns.

What do you think about the potential DJ drone ban in the ? Do you agree with Elise Stefanik that Chinese-made drones, specifically DJI drones, need to be banned from the country? Or do you think that this is a heavily politicized topic, and do you feel that DJI drones should be allowed to be used by , departments, and fire departments? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below. We're curious to hear from you.

You can read more related articles about the Countering CCP Drones Act here on DroneXL.

Discover more from DroneXL

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


Proposed legislation threatens your ability to use drones for fun, work, and safety. The Drone Advocacy Alliance is fighting to ensure your voice is heard in these critical policy discussions.Join us and tell your elected officials to protect your right to fly.

Drone Advocacy Alliance
Follow us on Google News!

Get your Part 107 Certificate

Pass the test and take to the skies with the Pilot Institute. We have helped thousands of people become airplane and commercial drone pilots. Our courses are designed by industry experts to help you pass FAA tests and achieve your dreams.

pilot institute dronexl

Copyright © DroneXL.co 2024. All rights reserved. The content, images, and intellectual property on this website are protected by copyright law. Reproduction or distribution of any material without prior written permission from DroneXL.co is strictly prohibited. For permissions and inquiries, please contact us first.

FTC: DroneXL.co is an Amazon Associate and uses affiliate links that can generate income from qualifying purchases. We do not sell, share, rent out, or spam your email.

Haye Kesteloo
Haye Kesteloo

Haye Kesteloo is the Editor in Chief and Founder of DroneXL.co, where he covers all drone-related news, DJI rumors and writes drone reviews, and EVXL.co, for all news related to electric vehicles. He is also a co-host of the PiXL Drone Show on YouTube and other podcast platforms. Haye can be reached at haye @ dronexl.co or @hayekesteloo.

Articles: 3750


  1. While the drones won’t be technically “bricked” if the revoke FCC licenses you wont be able to fly them since you can’t operate a transmission device without it having a FCC license so it might as well be bricked.

  2. Everyone should know by now that this is a protectionist action actually written by a lobbiest for Skydio that went to work for Stefonik. It is so frustrating that we the people have absolutely no control over the insane actions of our government, from considering NATO membership by Ukraine, the root causes of inflation, to this obviously bogus legislative attempt to prevent DJI from selling anymore drones in the US.

    Why not make US companies compete in a fair way!

    To this day, the only car I ever owned that gave me relatively zero problems is a Lexus! Need I say more.

    American companies need to step up and build better products rather than cheat in this manner!

  3. Perhaps the government should focus the time and effort wasted on an issue such as this or any of the other pointless arguments taxes and time are wasted on, and start investigating all the crooked politicians within itself!? The ones on the RIGHT and the LEFT….and every damn one in between!!!
    Aw damn! Then we wouldn’t actually have a government because 80% of them would be convicted of treason for who knows what!
    Cull the herd and rebuild! With common sense and people who actually care about the prosperity of OUR country and not the size of their personal wealth.

  4. If there is evidence that DJI drones are a threat to national security than it undermines Stefanik’s entire premise to not revoke all current FCC certifications, as there are millions of FCC Certified DJI “spy drones” currently flying in our country. The fact the bill seems to only target all future innovation and sales of DJI and the ability to get FCC authorization to connect to radio communications, which is required so drones and other products can be used at full capacity, says to me it’s about killing the competition, not athe facade argument this is for “national security”. IMHO. Regardless, this is causing so much stress and harm across dozens of diverse industries. What a shame this is. I pray it is pulled from the NDAA and given the due diligence of debate and attention it deserves.

  5. We all know it’s going to pass the Senate. There may be a provision or 2 but it’s going to pass.
    It’s really underhanded the way they slipped it into the DOD annual budget.
    I think someone has had it in for DJI since they lost a judgement of hundreds of millions of dollars to Bell Helicopter for patent infringement.
    Bell Aircraft is so deep in the military industrial complex that one could say that they are one in the same. That connection goes way back.
    DJI lost a judgement to Bell a couple of years ago that I thought was a stretch and really unfair.
    Huge difference in the applications of automated return to home programs between manned vertical take off and landing aircraft and UAV. Yet they were still found guilty and ordered to pay. It was obvious to me then that someone had it out for DJI.
    Then this railroad job follows that? Yeah it’s not a coincidence or a conspiracy…this is someones personal agenda. Someone who is an asshole.

  6. I only use built in screen remote controllers. It’s my understanding that the concern revolves potential “back door” programs in the apps ran on cell phones. So it seems that requiring Chinese drones to use remote controllers that are stand alone devices and requiring all data other than the OS to be kept on micro SD cards that must be removed before updating firmware would eliminate any potential security risk.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.