A bill allocating defense spending for fiscal year 2025 just passed in the US Senate does not include provisions contained in the House version restricting the activities of Chinese firm DJI, the US market leader in ag spray drones. But there is a catch.
The reconciled version of the bill from both branches of Congress now heading to President Biden’s desk contains a clause that has raised alarm bells with US distributors of products from DJI, which estimates that four out of every five ag drones utilized by US farmers are DJI models.
According to the final text of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), “Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, an appropriate national security agency shall determine if any of the following communications or video surveillance equipment or services pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons: Communications or video surveillance equipment produced by Shenzhen Da-Jiang Innovations Sciences and Technologies Company Limited (commonly known as DJI Technologies) and Autel Robotics Co [another Chinese drone manufacturer].
“If the appropriate national security agency does not make a determination… within one year after the enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall add all communications equipment and services [from the above manufacturers] to the covered list.”
The FCC’s covered list features communications equipment and services “deemed to pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States.”
‘A significant departure from the principle of innocent until proven guilty’
Being added to the list would prevent DJI and Autel from getting FCC licenses for future drone models, and potentially lead to the revocation of existing FCC authorizations, something US distributors of DJI drones claim could “be a job killer in rural America,”but some US drone makers argue may be justified due to security risks.
The new provision, buried on page 1084 of the massive spending bill, “represents a significant departure from the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty,” said Bryan Sanders, president at full-service industrial drone company HSE-UAV.
He told AgFunderNews: “It effectively places the burden of proof on manufacturers like DJI, presuming a potential security risk without presenting clear evidence of wrongdoing.
“While national security is undeniably important, this approach raises concerns. We already have established cybersecurity standards for electronics. Why not apply those universally to all manufacturers, regardless of their country of origin, instead of singling out specific companies?”
He added: “In the absence of credible evidence demonstrating DJI’s products pose a unique threat, this measure appears more focused on stifling competition than enhancing security. Ultimately, I believe such actions will harm the industry by limiting innovation and choice, which in turn negatively impacts the farmers and businesses who rely on this technology.”
DJI: Lawmakers must designate an agency to conduct the required risk study
A DJI spokesperson stressed that the NDAA as it stands is good news for DJI and US companies using its ag spray drones: “DJI is not banned from operating or selling products in the US market.”
However, the calls for a risk assessment in the final text do raise concerns, said the company. “The legislation unfairly singles out Chinese drones and does not designate an agency to conduct the required risk study. If no agency determines whether DJI poses a risk, DJI would automatically be added to the FCC covered list through no fault of its own.
“DJI should be provided with a fair opportunity and allowed due process in order to either validate or address any potential findings from the assessment, as no technology audit is ever perfect.
“Since 2017 DJI has conducted regular audits of its products and has rewarded external security researchers for identifying vulnerabilities through a bug bounty program. This reflects our longstanding commitment to continuously improving product safety and security whilst also expanding the privacy controls available to our customers.”
As for next steps, DJI says it will urge lawmakers to “designate a relevant, technically-focused agency to ensure the assessment is evidence based: and “grant DJI a fair right of reply to any findings.”
‘It’s hot to be anti-China right now’
DJI distributors that have spoken to AgFunderNews in recent weeks say fears that ag spray drones could be commandeered mid-flight for nefarious purposes or send vital information back to China are overblown. However, Drone Nerds CEO Jeremy Schneiderman said they are keen to address lawmakers’ security concerns and create cybersecurity standards or appropriate regulations to “protect vital data across all drones, regardless of country of origin.”
Bryan Sanders at HSE-UAV added: “It’s hot to be anti-China right now and DJI has kind of become the whipping child in all this, but this technology provides nothing that you can’t gather from other publicly available sources on planting and crop production, and if you want maps, go to Google Earth. If you want to see what pesticides are being used and in what quantities, you can go to the EPA website.”
He added: “What we’re seeing is a lot of fear mongering and scenarios that sound scary. But if you really look at what’s being said, you can quickly debunk it.”
US farmers have been steadily increasing their use of spray drones in recent years, with 3.7 million acres sprayed by drone in 2023 across 41 states and 50 crops, mostly by Chinese-made drones, claim members of the American Spray Drone Coalition a new group formed in July.
Eric Ringer, president of the new coalition, told AgFunderNews: “We’re glad to see Congress call on experts within our security agencies to assess whether DJI poses a risk to national security. Because 10.3 million acres were treated by spray drones in 2024, it’s critical to maintain access to the best technology and to make sure that those drones are secure and safe to use.
“We don’t think spray drones are communications or surveillance equipment as referenced in the text of the bill and we hope to continue to work with Congress to raise awareness of spray drones and their many economic benefits in rural communities.”
Further reading:
