DJI Responds to Court Ruling, Denies Military Ties Despite Pentagon Designation

DJI pushed back against a federal court decision upholding its Pentagon designation as a “Chinese Military Company,” issuing a statement on September 30 that highlights the court’s rejection of most government allegations while maintaining the drone maker has no military connections. The Chinese drone giant, which controls 76% of the U.S. market, emphasized that the U.S. District Court found no evidence of Communist Party control or military affiliations, even as Judge Paul Friedman allowed the Defense Department designation to stand.

The statement comes four days after DJI suffered a major legal defeat that threatens to reshape the American drone industry. While the company lost its overall challenge, it’s seizing on specific court findings to defend its reputation and reassure customers facing potential equipment bans and supply chain disruptions.

Court Rejects Most Pentagon Allegations Against DJI

DJI’s official response highlights what the company views as vindication on key points. The court explicitly rejected the Department of Defense’s claims that DJI is owned or controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, affiliated with China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, or connected to military-civil fusion enterprise zones.

“The Court affirmatively rejected most of DOD’s allegations,” DJI stated, noting these findings confirm the company’s “long-held position that DJI is not controlled by the government and has no ties to the military.”

Judge Friedman upheld only two government assertions: DJI’s recognition as a National Enterprise Technology Center (NETC) and the dual-use nature of its technology. DJI points out that NETC status is “widely granted to companies with industry-leading technological innovation capabilities,” including major U.S. companies across various industries from automotive to apparel.

Military Use Prevention Policies Deemed “Irrelevant”

The court’s acknowledgment that DJI’s drones have “substantial dual-use applications in military and civilian settings” proved particularly contentious. DJI emphasized that the ruling found no actual misuse by the Chinese military, a point the company says it has “repeatedly certified to the public.”

DJI stressed it was the first drone company to publicly denounce combat use of its products and has never manufactured military equipment or marketed drones for combat operations. However, the court ruled that “whether or not DJI’s policies prohibit military use is irrelevant” to the Pentagon designation.

Despite this judicial dismissal, DJI pledged to “continue to uphold its robust policies prohibiting the military use of its drones” and maintain all available measures to prevent combat applications.

Business Impact Looms as December Deadline Approaches

While DJI evaluates its legal options following the ruling, the company faces immediate business pressures beyond the courtroom defeat. A December 23, 2025 deadline threatens automatic FCC blacklisting if federal agencies fail to complete a mandated security review, potentially blocking new product certifications entirely.

The Pentagon designation has already triggered widespread disruptions, with 90% of police departments and public safety agencies relying on DJI technology now facing equipment restrictions. Federal contracts have been terminated, state-level bans are expanding, and U.S. Customs continues detaining shipments under forced labor allegations.

DJI concluded its statement by reaffirming its commitment to “empowering creators, businesses, and public safety organizations worldwide with safe, innovative, and accessible technology,” while indicating the company is “evaluating avenues available to respond to this ruling.“

DroneXL’s Take

DJI’s response represents a strategic attempt to salvage its reputation by highlighting the court’s rejection of the most serious allegations, even as the overall designation stands. The company’s emphasis on the lack of evidence for Communist Party control or military connections may resonate with commercial customers and drone enthusiasts who view the Pentagon designation as overly broad.

However, the court’s ruling that company policies against military use are “irrelevant” sets a troubling precedent. If commercial technology with theoretical military applications can trigger national security designations regardless of manufacturer intent or safeguards, virtually any advanced technology company could face similar restrictions.

The real test comes December 23. With federal agencies showing no urgency to conduct the mandated security review, DJI may find itself automatically banned through bureaucratic inaction rather than explicit policy decisions. This administrative limbo could prove more damaging than any courtroom loss, leaving the entire drone industry in uncertainty about equipment availability and future operations.

What do you think about DJI’s response and the court’s reasoning? Will the distinction between theoretical capabilities and actual military use matter to your purchasing decisions? Share your thoughts in the comments below.