GOP Senators Break With DJI Hawks As December Ban Deadline Looms

Republican infighting over Chinese drone restrictions could determine whether DJI survives in the American market.

A Capitol Hill push by GOP China hawks to impose new restrictions on DJI is facing unexpected resistance from Republican senators who warn the company’s drones have become critical tools for U.S. farming and energy firms, according to Politico.

The split comes just 27 days before DJI faces automatic addition to the FCC’s Covered List on December 23.

Senate Strips DJI Provision From Defense Bill

Rep. Elise Stefanik secured DJI restrictions in the House version of the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act. But the Senate Armed Services Committee opted against including the provision in their version.

Now the two chambers must reconcile their differences in conference negotiations.

Senate Agriculture Chair John Boozman, an Arkansas Republican, told Politico he opposes the hardline approach.

“They are the primary drone maker in the United States at a reasonable price,” Boozman said. “This technology is being used more and more. … That’s the crux of the problem.”

Sen. John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican, echoed the concern about economic fallout.

“There are real cost ramifications for commercial enterprises, not just farming,” Hoeven said. “You’ve got the energy industry, where they’re tracking transmission lines, rescue and recovery, all these different other uses. It’s something we’ve got to figure out.”

Cruz Committee Pushes Back On Scott

Sen. Rick Scott, the Florida Republican championing a Senate version of Stefanik’s language, has run into resistance at the Senate Commerce Committee chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.

Phoebe Keller, a committee spokesperson for Cruz, told Politico that staff engaged with the proposal but ultimately walked away.

“Commerce did not oppose the inclusion of a DJI audit in the [defense bill],” Keller said. “Staff provided edits to the text and engaged in good faith to clear the language. The sponsors ultimately chose not to engage further but we remain happy to work with the sponsors if and when they decide to reengage.”

A person granted anonymity to discuss the negotiations told Politico that committee staff conveyed concerns about the ramifications of banning drones relied upon by first responders.

Scott dismissed concerns about American alternatives not being ready.

“There’s American companies, and there will be,” said Scott, a former Florida governor. “I’m a business guy. If you told me there was an opportunity, I could figure it out pretty fast.”

No Agency Plans Audit Before Deadline

The legislative battle unfolds against a critical deadline. Section 1709 of last year’s NDAA requires a federal security agency to determine whether DJI poses an unacceptable national security risk by December 23, 2025.

No national security agency has indicated it plans to conduct the audit in time to meet the deadline.

If no audit occurs, DJI automatically joins the FCC’s Covered List. New products would be banned from entering the U.S. market.

Stefanik is making the case that DJI exposes Americans’ data to the Chinese government.

“It is very important for us to have U.S. drones and not have that data be turned over to the CCP,” she said. “It has been an issue we’ve worked on for a number of years with traditional bipartisan support to protect our information, whether it’s the topography of their regions or on the installations … or potential troop movements.”

DJI Calls It Protectionism

DJI has spent nearly $3 million on federal lobbying this year, appealing to lawmakers from states and districts that rely on its drones for agricultural and law enforcement operations.

Adam Welsh, DJI’s global head of policy, rejected the security framing entirely.

“The fundamental point is, this isn’t really about data security,” Welsh said. “This is, frankly, about protectionism and trying to protect a U.S. industry.”

The National Sheriffs’ Association warned against the ban’s impact on law enforcement.

“It would have a very significant level of repercussions, full stop,” CEO Jonathan Thompson said. “It’s a little like taking cars out of a sheriff’s office and saying you can’t use any cars. These are ubiquitous.”

Government’s Own Track Record

Even federal agencies have struggled to wean themselves off Chinese drones.

After the Interior Department prohibited purchasing new DJI drones in 2020, the Government Accountability Office found the removal of foreign-made drone fleets had significantly impaired operations at the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service.

“BLM and NPS do not have enough drones for their operations to manage or prevent wildland fires and have shifted some operations to riskier, more costly methods, such as helicopters,” the GAO said.

The finding validates what first responders have argued for years: no American alternative matches DJI’s capability-to-cost ratio.

DroneXL’s Take

This Republican civil war over DJI exposes a fundamental truth we’ve documented for years: the DJI drone ban campaign was never about security. It was about eliminating competition that American manufacturers can’t match on merit.

When GOP senators from agricultural and energy states publicly break with China hawks, they’re admitting what Florida’s disastrous drone ban already proved. We investigated how Florida destroyed $200 million in functional public safety drones, provided only $25 million for inferior replacements, and never published the security analysis that was supposed to justify it all.

Senator Jason Pizzo accused a state official of “pimping for Skydio” during that debacle. Now we’re watching the same dynamic play out at the federal level.

The timing matters. As we reported just days ago, DJI could face a market ban without any review or due process because no federal agency has begun the mandated security audit despite DJI requesting it nine months ago. The NDAA required a review but never assigned which agency should conduct it.

This is a bureaucratic trap, not a security policy.

We’ve tracked Skydio’s controversial lobbying pivot since the company abandoned consumer drones in 2023 and pivoted to aggressive advocacy for legislative restrictions on Chinese manufacturers. Industry experts have slammed the approach, with the Mountain Rescue Association’s UAS Chairman stating Skydio has “the WORST reputation in public safety for all of the political posturing.”

The senators raising concerns understand what their colleagues driving the ban apparently don’t: farmers depend on DJI drones for spray missions, mapping, and field scouting. Spray drone operators treated over 10.3 million acres across 42 states in 2024. That capability doesn’t exist without affordable Chinese hardware.

And when we say the DJI ban means lives lost, we mean it literally. Fire departments using DJI drones for search and rescue. Police conducting accident reconstruction. Agricultural operations monitoring crop health across thousands of acres.

The GAO’s finding about Interior Department operations validates everything first responders have been saying. When you force agencies to abandon proven technology without viable alternatives, people get hurt.

Boozman and Hoeven aren’t defending China. They’re defending the American farmers, energy workers, and first responders who actually use these tools. The fact that they’re willing to publicly break with their party’s China hawks suggests the ban campaign’s foundation is weaker than Stefanik and Scott want to admit.

The December 23 deadline approaches. Either a federal agency will complete the mandated review, Congress will extend the timeline, or DJI will be banned through bureaucratic neglect rather than evidence-based security findings.

Today’s Politico report suggests the outcome is less certain than the hawks assumed.

What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments below.