DJI Faces December Ban Deadline as Political Pressure Spawns Proxy Company Network

A security audit mandated by Rep. Elise Stefanik could ban new DJI and Autel drone purchases within 30 days if the companies are deemed an “unacceptable risk” to national security by late December. But the looming deadline raises uncomfortable questions about whether this is genuine security policy or protectionist theater designed to prop up a struggling American drone industry that can’t compete on price or performance.

The political pressure has become so intense that a network of companies with suspected ties to DJI has emerged across the country—appearing to use proprietary DJI technology while avoiding direct association with the Chinese manufacturer. The shell company phenomenon reveals just how far the anti-Chinese drone campaign has pushed market dynamics.

The Case Against DJI: Security Theater or Legitimate Concern?

The national security argument against DJI has been remarkably consistent—and remarkably vague. Chinese laws theoretically require companies to support state intelligence work, but after nearly two decades of DJI dominating the U.S. market, lawmakers have yet to produce concrete evidence of data compromise or espionage using consumer drones.

DJI has systematically addressed every security concern raised. Since June 2024, American users can’t sync data to DJI servers. The company’s drones can operate completely offline using undetectable code and erase data on command. A 2023 study by FTI Consulting found that DJI drones in local data mode didn’t transmit any information whatsoever.

Yet the drumbeat for a ban continues, even as DJI controls over 90 percent of the consumer market and reportedly 88 percent of drones used by New York state and local agencies are manufactured by DJI or Autel Robotics. The timing is conspicuous: American drone manufacturers can’t compete, so lawmakers are attempting to eliminate the competition through legislation rather than innovation.

The Proxy Company Strategy: DJI’s Market Adaptation

The intensity of political pressure against DJI has spawned an ecosystem of companies bringing DJI-based technology to American markets through various arrangements—from transparent licensing deals to suspected shell operations designed to circumvent restrictions.

Security researcher Konrad Iturbe has documented this network through sophisticated frequency analysis. His automated monitoring system identifies drones using DJI’s proprietary OcuSync communication protocols—technical fingerprints that can’t be replicated by competitors.

“I built a small bot that finds these shells,” Iturbe explained. “Every day, the bot goes to the FCC and it searches through the listings for the DJI OcuSync, specific frequencies.”

The discovered companies fall into distinct categories:

Anzu Robotics represents the transparent end of the spectrum. This Austin-based American company, owned and operated by U.S. citizens, openly licenses DJI Mavic 3 technology and runs U.S.-made software from Aloft.

Fikaxo Technology Inc. represents the suspected shell company category. Discovered through Iturbe’s frequency monitoring in September 2025, Fikaxo’s website contains spelling mistakes, references to competitor Autel Robotics in the footer, and uses a Gmail address for business contact. The company lists a San Diego address that appears to be a virtual office, and its E1 drone is a suspected rebranded DJI Mavic 3 Enterprise in beige. The company claims to be “a U.S.-based technology company founded by a team of drone and communications experts”—language nearly identical to other suspected shell operations.

Editor’s Note: Fikaxo has since the publishing of our article the Fikaxo E1 photos removed from their website.

Jovistar Inc. emerged just one day after the Fikaxo discovery. FCC filings reveal specifications closely matching the DJI Mini 5 Pro, including LiDAR capability and battery specs (11.55V, 3084mAh) that closely match DJI’s newest consumer drone. Since DJI cannot officially launch the Mini 5 Pro in America due to customs restrictions under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, a Jovistar-branded version would fill this market gap while technically avoiding direct DJI imports.

Cogito Tech, SkyRover, and others round out the network. Cogito sells the Specta Air (identical to DJI Air 3) and Specta Mini (DJI Mini 2 clone) through Hong Kong corporate structures. Internal code analysis reveals “DJI” listed as manufacturer while displaying “SPECTA” as vendor brand. Additional companies following similar patterns include Skyhigh Tech, Talos, Wavego, Skyany, Knowact, and Xtra—each maintaining minimal corporate transparency while distributing exclusively through Amazon.

This proliferation of DJI-technology companies demonstrates both the intensity of political pressure and the degree to which the American market depends on Chinese drone innovation. If domestic alternatives were competitive, these workarounds wouldn’t be necessary.

The American Alternative Reality Check

Here’s what the push for American-made drones actually looks like on the ground: Sheriff Craig Apple explored domestic alternatives and found they don’t perform as well despite costing nearly three times more, according to a Times Union report.

The Schenectady Police Department bought BRINC drones—produced in Seattle—specifically because they needed “more durable and advanced” equipment, but the price premium was substantial.

The supply chain challenges facing American manufacturers aren’t accidental—they’re the result of China’s decades-long dominance in drone technology and manufacturing. David Benowitz of BRINC acknowledged that drone motors were only built in China until recently, forcing U.S. companies to spend significant time and money developing alternatives.

This isn’t a level playing field. It’s a legislative attempt to handicap the market leader until domestic producers catch up—assuming they ever can.

Political Pressure Builds Nationwide

The federal push against DJI isn’t happening in isolation. Across the country, state and local governments are joining the anti-Chinese drone movement, often with little scrutiny of the underlying claims.

New York’s state Legislature passed a bill unanimously barring state agencies from purchasing any equipment prohibited for federal use. The measure, awaiting Governor Kathy Hochul’s signature, would prevent DJI purchases by local governments unless they receive exceptions. State Sen. Jeremy Cooney called DJI “bad actors from foreign governments” who “should not continue to have relationships with New York state.”

The New York Power Authority is “phasing out” Chinese drones for Skydio products, which spokesman Alex Chiaravalle claims are easier to pilot with better 3-D modeling capabilities. Yet Skydio abandoned the consumer market entirely in 2023, choosing instead to focus on lucrative government contracts where Chinese competition has been systematically eliminated.

In 2021, the Treasury Department added DJI to the Chinese Military-Industrial Complex list for alleged involvement in biometric surveillance of Uyghurs. DJI has consistently denied these allegations, calling them “entirely unfounded and categorically false” in a company blog post earlier this year. U.S. Customs has blocked some DJI drones under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, though the specific evidence supporting these actions remains murky.

The Real Cost of Protectionism

Tim Rigdon, founder of CropCare, an agricultural drone spraying company in western New York, is reportedly considering closing entirely if Chinese drones are banned. Agricultural drones map farmers’ land and spray fields without heavy industrial equipment. The alternatives? Prohibitively expensive.

“The only way to get American companies to get better, because we’re so far behind, is to fly American drones, but it’s a huge upfront cost,” Rigdon said to the Times Union. “It’s going to set us back before it pushes us forward.”

Sheriff Apple was even more direct: “It would be devastating and essentially eliminate the Albany County sheriff’s drone unit.” When exploring American alternatives, he found inferior performance at triple the price. “You can’t beat a DJI drone,” he concluded—a sentiment shared by law enforcement, farmers, construction companies, and videographers nationwide.

Last year, New York State Police spent $150,000 on new DJI drones despite already owning about 100 units. The agency “continuously scrutinizes” its fleet for compliance with security requirements, according to spokesman Beau Duffy, though he declined to elaborate on specific concerns when asked about national security impacts.

The CHIPS Act Comparison: Legitimate Investment or False Equivalency?

Supporters of restrictions compare the drone situation to semiconductors, pointing to the $280 billion CHIPS and Science Act approved by Congress in 2022. That legislation included billions for Micron to build chip fabrication plants in upstate New York, projected to create 9,000 jobs. Georgia Tech professor Annie Anton, who specializes in cybersecurity, supports similar legislation for drones.

“Banning Chinese drones would eliminate competition with that nation but new incentives for American suppliers will help advance the U.S. drone industry,” Benowitz reportedly argued.

But the comparison ignores critical differences. Semiconductor manufacturing involves cutting-edge technology where the U.S. maintains competitive advantages and national security implications are demonstrable. Drone manufacturing is a mature market where China has built systematic advantages through supply chain integration, manufacturing expertise, and iterative product development—advantages that can’t be legislated away.

Skydio secured a $74 million contract with the State Department for counter-narcotics operations, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued an order in July calling for combat units to use “low-cost drones made by America’s world-leading engineers and AI experts,” promising hundreds of American drones for military use. These government contracts create artificial demand that wouldn’t exist in an open market—corporate welfare disguised as national security.

DroneXL’s Take

The shell company phenomenon isn’t evidence of DJI’s malicious intent—it’s evidence of how intense political pressure has distorted normal market dynamics. When legitimate companies like Anzu Robotics must charge premiums to license existing technology, and suspected shell operations proliferate to meet persistent market demand, something has gone fundamentally wrong with policy.

Let’s be clear: This isn’t primarily about national security. If it were, lawmakers would have produced concrete evidence of DJI drones compromising U.S. interests after nearly two decades of market dominance. Instead, we get vague references to Chinese laws and theoretical vulnerabilities that DJI has systematically addressed through offline operation, local data storage, and independently verified security measures.

The proxy company network reveals an uncomfortable truth: American operators need Chinese drone technology because domestic alternatives can’t compete on performance or price. Sheriff Apple’s blunt assessment—“you can’t beat a DJI drone”—isn’t a political statement. It’s market reality. When agricultural operator Tim Rigdon says switching to American drones would force him to close, he’s explaining that alternatives don’t just cost more, they fundamentally can’t do the job at a viable price point.

The December deadline creates artificial urgency for a problem that hasn’t been convincingly demonstrated. If Chinese drones pose such an imminent threat, why did it take Congress until 2024 to mandate a security audit? Why are 88 percent of New York’s government drones still DJI models if the risk is so severe?

This audit (if it ever happens) may very well result in a DJI ban. But don’t mistake it for security policy. It’s industrial policy designed to give American companies time to catch up to where DJI is today—assuming they ever can. The real question is whether we’re willing to sacrifice operational capability, public safety, and small business viability while domestic manufacturers attempt to close a technology gap that’s been widening for two decades.

The proliferation of companies bringing DJI technology to market through various arrangements—from transparent licensing to suspected circumvention—will likely continue regardless of December’s outcome. Market demand doesn’t disappear because Congress writes legislation. It just finds new channels.

Are you preparing for a potential DJI ban, or do you think the security concerns are overblown? What’s your experience with American drone alternatives? Share your perspective in the comments below.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​