Connecticut Agricultural Drone Law Takes Effect as 170% Tariffs Price Out 92% of Farms

I’ve been watching Connecticut’s agriculture drone bill since it first appeared in March. Now it’s law, and the timing couldn’t be more ironic: Connecticut just legalized agricultural drone spraying six days before the FCC’s December 23 deadline could ban the very equipment farmers need to use it.

Here’s what you need to know:

• What: Public Act 25-152 authorizes drone use for crop spraying, seeding, and surveillance in Connecticut
• Who: Pilots must hold both FAA certification AND a state Department of Agriculture pesticide applicator license
• When: Rules must be finalized by March 1, 2026
• Why it matters: 92% of Connecticut farms are “priced out” of the technology due to 170% tariffs on Chinese ag drones

The law was reported by CT Insider on December 17, which framed it as Connecticut modernizing its agriculture sector. That’s technically true, but it misses the elephant in the room.

The Math That Nobody Wants to Talk About

Michael Quick, a licensed drone pilot quoted in the CT Insider piece, laid out the brutal numbers: before tariffs, a starter Chinese-made agricultural drone cost about $20,000. Higher-end ready-to-fly systems with batteries, chargers, and accessories ran $35,000 to $40,000. Now, with cumulative 170% tariffs, those same systems cost upwards of $100,000.

“When you’re talking about smaller drones, it still hurts,” Quick told CT Insider. “But with some of these drones that were $40,000, now you’re talking upwards of $100,000” with all the accessories.

His assessment: 92% of Connecticut farms are priced out of using the technology. While Quick didn’t specify the methodology behind that figure, the math supports his point. Connecticut has roughly 5,500 farms, most of them small operations where a six-figure equipment purchase isn’t remotely feasible.

We’ve been tracking this tariff impact since April, when the Trump administration exempted smartphones and laptops from its 125% reciprocal tariffs but left drones fully exposed. The 170% cumulative tariff (25% Section 301 + 20% fentanyl-related + 125% reciprocal) means importers pay 2.7 times the original price for a DJI agricultural drone.

The December 23 Collision Course

The tariff problem is bad. The FCC deadline makes it potentially catastrophic for future equipment access.

As we’ve reported extensively, Section 1709 of the FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act requires a federal security audit of DJI by December 23, 2025. If no agency completes that review, DJI automatically joins the FCC’s Covered List.

Here’s what that means in practice: new DJI products would be blocked from receiving FCC authorization, effectively ending new imports. Equipment already in dealer warehouses can still be sold. Drones already in farmers’ hands won’t suddenly brick. But the supply pipeline gets cut, replacement parts become harder to source, and future models never arrive.

No agency has confirmed they’re conducting the review. DJI has been requesting it since March.

DJI controls roughly 80% of agricultural spray drone sales in the U.S. market, according to our coverage of Michigan State University’s landmark study on agricultural drone adoption. The company’s Agras T50 carries an MSRP around $18,000. American-made alternatives from companies like Hylio start at $20,000 for entry-level models and reach $85,000 for advanced systems.

That’s a 3x to 5x price increase for comparable capability, and that’s before factoring in tariffs.

The Dual-License Requirement Part 107 Pilots Need to Understand

Connecticut’s law creates an interesting dual-licensing structure. To spray pesticides or fertilizers via drone, you need:

1. FAA certification for drone operation (Part 107 or potentially Part 137 for agricultural aircraft operations)
2. State Department of Agriculture certification as a pesticide applicator

The law gives Connecticut’s agriculture commissioner authority to set limits on chemical types and amounts, where spraying can occur, and conditions for flight including wind, weather, and operating hours. Farmers operating in crowded areas need local health approval, and there are restrictions on spraying near older residential buildings without property owner consent.

For Part 107 pilots considering entering the agricultural services market, this creates both opportunity and complexity. You’re not just getting your Part 107 and buying an ag drone. You’re navigating a dual regulatory framework that requires agricultural expertise alongside aviation skills.

Almanax: The Service Model Response

One Connecticut startup is betting on a service model to solve the affordability crisis.

Almanax, founded by Michael Quick and James Smith (operations manager at Cushman Farms), plans to offer drone services to farmers who can’t afford the equipment, with eventual plans to build and sell “more affordable, U.S.-made drones” as federal restrictions take effect.

The service model makes sense. The manufacturing ambition faces the same hurdles that keep Hylio expensive: American manufacturers lack DJI’s scale, supply chain integration, and component cost advantages. Hylio isn’t pricey because of labor costs alone. It’s pricey because building drones outside China’s manufacturing ecosystem means paying premium prices for every motor, battery cell, and flight controller. Whether Almanax can crack that code remains to be seen.

The company plans a pilot program in spring 2026, partnering with local farms to test scouting and spraying operations. It’s the same service-provider model that’s emerged elsewhere as equipment costs have escalated.

Connecticut’s DOA Commissioner Bryan Hurlburt suggested the state’s Farm Transition Grant program, which provides up to $50,000 in matching funds, could help offset equipment costs. He also floated the idea of larger farms sharing equipment with smaller operations.

That $50,000 covers roughly half of one tariff-inflated Chinese drone, or about 60% of an entry-level American alternative. It’s something, but it’s not a solution at scale.

Connecticut’s Complicated Drone History

This positive development comes from a state that has otherwise made questionable drone policy decisions.

In March 2025, Connecticut passed what Russ from 51 Drones called “one of the most ignorant drone laws” ever enacted, House Bill 7066. That law attempted to regulate flight altitudes and locations, provisions that will likely lose in court due to federal preemption, since the FAA has unequivocal authority over airspace.

The state has also considered banning DJI drones from first responders, which would ground programs that have actually saved lives. Just days ago, we reported on Connecticut State Police requesting permission to install drone detection sensors on public school rooftops, funded by federal anti-terrorism grants.

The agricultural drone law represents a rare moment of Connecticut getting drone policy right. The timing just happens to be terrible.

DroneXL’s Take

Here’s what I expect: This law will have almost zero practical impact in 2026.

Not because the policy is bad. Connecticut did its job: the state regulates pesticide application, and they updated their rules to accommodate drone technology. That’s federalism working correctly. The problem is that Connecticut can’t fix the federal hardware crisis, even if they wanted to. Trade policy and FCC restrictions are entirely outside Hartford’s jurisdiction.

The equipment simply doesn’t exist at prices Connecticut farmers can afford. DJI ag drones face potential import restrictions in six days. American alternatives from Hylio can’t scale fast enough, with the company targeting just 5,000 units annually by 2028, up from an estimated 500-1,000 today. That wouldn’t cover a fraction of current DJI market share.

We covered this exact problem in our MSU study article: agricultural drones registered with the FAA leaped from roughly 1,000 in January 2024 to around 5,500 by mid-2025. The adoption curve was accelerating. Federal policy is about to slam the brakes.

The service model, like what Almanax is building, may be the only viable path forward for most Connecticut farms. If you’re a Part 107 pilot with agricultural connections and you can figure out the pesticide applicator certification, there’s a real business opportunity here. Just don’t count on Chinese equipment being part of your long-term fleet plan.

The agricultural drone revolution is real. MSU researchers called it faster than almost any technology adoption in farming history. But in the United States, we’re watching that revolution get strangled by trade policy and security theater while the rest of the world moves forward.

Are you a Part 107 pilot considering agricultural services? Or a Connecticut farmer watching these developments? Tell us in the comments what December 23 means for your plans.

Featured photo credit: DJI