DJI takes FCC to court: the government had a year to prove a threat and never bothered

DJI is done waiting for Washington to play fair. Two months after the FCC added all foreign-made drones to its Covered List, the world’s largest drone manufacturer has taken the fight to federal court, filing a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit challenging the December 22, 2025, decision that blocked new equipment authorizations for its products in America.

The company’s core argument is blunt: the FCC never proved DJI is a threat. We’ve been saying the same thing since December.

• The Development: DJI filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit on Friday, February 20, challenging the FCC’s decision to place the company on the Covered List. Bloomberg and Reuters broke the news today.
• The Argument: DJI says the listing suffers from “serious procedural flaws and substantive defects” and violates the Constitution and federal law.
• The Pattern: This is DJI’s second active federal appeal. The company is already fighting the Pentagon’s “Chinese Military Company” designation in the D.C. Circuit.
• What Doesn’t Change: Your existing DJI drones still work. Previously authorized models can still be bought and flown.

DJI’s petition targets the FCC’s failure to produce evidence

DJI’s Ninth Circuit petition argues that the FCC placed the company on its Covered List without providing any substantive evidence that DJI products pose a national security threat, a requirement for inclusion under the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019. The company contends the listing is both procedurally and substantively flawed.

“Despite repeated efforts to engage with the government, DJI has never been given the chance to provide information to address or refute any concerns,” the company said in a statement. “These procedural and substantive deficiencies violate the Constitution and federal law.”

DJI also told Reuters that the FCC decision “carelessly restricts DJI’s business in the U.S. and summarily denies U.S. customers access to its latest technology.”

The Global Times reported that DJI said its appeal aims to protect not only its own interests but also American consumers and agricultural users who depend on DJI products. That framing is deliberate. DJI controls roughly 70 to 90 percent of the U.S. consumer and commercial drone market. Over 80 percent of the 1,800-plus state and local law enforcement agencies with drone programs rely on DJI equipment.

The FCC ban went far beyond what anyone expected

The FCC’s December 22, 2025, action did not simply target DJI and Autel as the NDAA originally intended. The agency banned all foreign-made drones and critical components from receiving new equipment authorizations, a sweeping action that caught the entire industry off guard. We covered the ban extensively on the day it dropped and called it out for what it was: bureaucratic inaction disguised as security policy.

Section 1709 of the FY25 NDAA gave the government a full year to conduct a security audit of DJI. DJI sent letters to five federal agencies in March, June, and December 2025 asking them to examine its products. No agency started the review. No evidence was gathered. No findings were made. Instead, an interagency body convened by the White House issued a national security determination on December 21, two days before the NDAA deadline. The FCC acted the next day, December 22, adding all foreign-made drones and components to the Covered List.

DJI, Autel, and all other foreign drone companies now sit alongside Huawei, ZTE, Hikvision, Dahua, and Kaspersky on the FCC’s Covered List.

DJI now fights on two legal fronts simultaneously

This Ninth Circuit petition is separate from DJI’s ongoing appeal of the Pentagon’s Section 1260H “Chinese Military Company” designation, which is proceeding through the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals after DJI lost a major district court ruling in September 2025, despite the judge rejecting most of the Defense Department’s claims about Communist Party control and military affiliations.

The two cases attack different regulatory actions, but the underlying argument is the same: the U.S. government is punishing DJI without producing evidence to justify it.

In the Pentagon case, Judge Paul Friedman found no evidence of CCP ownership or direct military affiliations, yet upheld the designation based on DJI’s dual-use technology and the Pentagon’s “broad discretion” in national security matters. DJI is betting the appellate courts will hold agencies to a higher standard.

What this means for drone pilots right now

Nothing changes for drone operators today, because filing a petition for review in an appellate court does not pause or stay the FCC’s Covered List restrictions while the case proceeds. DJI’s existing product lineup, every drone that received FCC authorization before December 22, 2025, can still be imported, sold, and flown. The Air 3S, Mini 4 Pro, Mini 5 Pro, Mavic 3 series, Matrice lineup, and every other currently authorized model remains legal.

New DJI products are still blocked. Any future drone that has not already received FCC equipment authorization cannot enter the U.S. market under current rules.

The FCC has granted temporary exemptions for Blue UAS-listed drones and domestically assembled products meeting a 65% domestic content threshold, but those exemptions expire January 1, 2027. DJI and Autel remain completely excluded from any exemption pathway.

DJI’s legal odds are not great, but the argument is strong

Courts have historically given federal agencies wide latitude on national security decisions, and DJI’s Pentagon lawsuit proved exactly how difficult these cases are to win. The company won on the facts in district court but lost on judicial deference to executive branch security assessments. The Ninth Circuit could follow the same pattern.

But DJI’s procedural argument carries real weight. The Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act requires the FCC to identify a national security threat before adding equipment to the Covered List. DJI is arguing the FCC skipped that requirement entirely, relying on a last-minute interagency determination rather than conducting the audit Congress mandated. If the court agrees the FCC failed to follow its own rules, DJI has a shot.

This case could take years to resolve. A district court ruling will likely come first, followed by circuit court appeals. If there is a circuit split between the Ninth and D.C. Circuits on related DJI cases, this could eventually reach the Supreme Court.

DroneXL’s Take

We’ve been covering DJI’s regulatory battles since before the FCC granted itself retroactive ban powers last October. We tracked the NDAA deadline for months. We called the December ban what it was on the day it happened: a failure disguised as policy.

This lawsuit was inevitable. DJI’s legal team has been telegraphing a procedural challenge since the Covered List addition dropped. The company’s argument is the same one we’ve been making: if DJI is a genuine national security threat, prove it. Conduct the audit. Show the evidence. The government had a full year to do exactly that and chose not to.

I don’t expect a quick resolution. Federal appeals take 12 to 24 months on average, and national security cases tend to drag even longer. The political landscape could shift entirely before this reaches a final ruling. But the filing itself matters. It puts the FCC on record defending a ban that was implemented without the evidentiary process Congress required.

Here’s my prediction: within six months, DJI will seek a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the Covered List designation while the case proceeds. The court will likely deny it, citing national security deference. But the discovery process could force the government to explain, for the first time, what specific evidence justified the ban. That’s the real prize. Not a court order. Transparency.

For Part 107 operators and commercial pilots, the practical advice hasn’t changed. Fly what you have. Stock up on batteries and spare parts while you can. And watch this case closely, because the outcome will determine whether the FCC can ban an entire industry segment by simply failing to do its homework.

Editorial Note: AI tools were used to assist with research and archive retrieval for this article. All reporting, analysis, and editorial perspectives are by Haye Kesteloo.