news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

Source: Global Times

[Global Times reporter Ding Yazhi] The United States is considering banning the sale and use of drones made in China, especially products of Shenzhen DJI Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. This decision has sparked widespread controversy, with a large number of loyal users, from mountain rescue teams to police stations and farmers, protesting by calling elected officials, writing op-eds and signing joint letters to oppose the ban.

The Wall Street Journal reported on the 8th that Nordfors, the head of aerial operations for the Weber County Sheriff's Search and Rescue Team, had a story. Nordfors tried to use a drone made by a Silicon Valley company for a search and rescue exercise, but found that it could not reach the top of the mountain at all and eventually returned due to loss of signal. Nordfors said that after testing multiple drones, DJI's product performed best. He was worried that if the US government banned the use of DJI drones, it would seriously affect the efficiency of search and rescue work.

The picture shows a DJI drone. Source: Visual China

In April this year, The Washington Post also reported in an article about the current status of the small drone industry in the United States. Frontline drone search and rescue coordinators in the United States are glad that state legislators have not banned the use of Chinese drones. They believe that American manufacturers are "years behind" and have a significant impact on life and death during search and rescue.

In recent years, the United States has repeatedly targeted Chinese companies on the grounds of so-called "data security". People from both parties, military officials and federal regulators have labeled Chinese companies as national security risks in an attempt to curb China's technological development and protect domestic industries and market competition in the United States. However, DJI drones have a huge market share in the United States, accounting for about 70% to 90%. The Wall Street Journal said that from real estate agents to filmmakers, from firefighters to roof inspectors, to public utilities and law enforcement agencies, they all have a high dependence on DJI drones. The U.S. Secret Service also purchased more than 20 drones before the restrictions were implemented.

DJI warned that the ban could cost the United States billions of dollars and affect thousands of jobs. "Killing the largest manufacturer out of the market would also create a vacuum in the U.S. drone ecosystem," DJI said in a letter to Congress. However, U.S. national security experts have exaggerated that dependence on Chinese drones is dangerous and China could use it in a conflict.

In June this year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an "Anti-Chinese Drone Act", which is part of the U.S. 2025 National Defense Authorization Act. The purpose is to prevent DJI's new equipment or software from obtaining U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) certification, and it may also lead to the revocation of existing FCC authorizations. If the bill is passed by the Senate and formally signed by the U.S. President, it may put this Chinese company at risk of being completely banned from sales in the United States.

However, the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee did not include this ban clause in its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025. The version passed by a vote of 22 to 3 in a closed-door vote and is scheduled to be submitted to the full Senate for deliberation. If the Senate version passes, the differences will be reconciled with the House version.

In addition, some local politicians in the United States have begun to take action against DJI. According to reports, at least seven states have passed bans on the use of Chinese drones by publicly funded institutions, but there are constant voices of opposition in the United States. Many people believe that American drones are not comparable to Chinese drones in terms of technical level, and the ban may have a negative impact on the US economy and multiple industries. In Florida, some counties have had to turn to purchasing American drones under the ban, but the performance is not as good as that of Chinese drones. Kansas Governor Laura Kelly vetoed a similar bill in the state, believing that it would place a heavy burden on law enforcement agencies.

Related News

"The technological levels are not comparable" The United States hesitates to ban DJI

Recently, the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) has released its version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Unlike the version passed by the House of Representatives last month, this version does not include requirements to restrict DJI drones from entering the U.S. market.

The Senate Armed Services Committee's version of the bill passed behind closed doors last month by a vote of 22 to 3 and will then go to the full Senate for consideration. If it passes the full Senate, it will have to be reconciled with the House version.

Previously, the House version of the bill required DJI to be included in the so-called "controlled list" of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), preventing DJI's new equipment or software from obtaining FCC certification, and may also lead to the revocation of existing FCC authorization.

The difference between the two versions shows that the United States also needs to be cautious about banning DJI. At present, the technical level of American drones is not comparable to that of Chinese drones, and it is not easy to find a suitable substitute.

In recent years, the United States has repeatedly targeted Chinese companies on the grounds of so-called "data security", such as DJI, which has experienced repeated suppression. However, the main reason for the current targeting of DJI is to curb China's technological development and protect the US domestic industry and market competition.

“Initially, the debate started with data security concerns, which we responded to,” said Adam Welsh, DJI’s global policy director. “Then the debate shifted to DJI’s dominance in the market and whether smaller U.S. companies can compete with us on price or quality. So I think that’s the main driver now.”

“If another Chinese company could reach DJI’s scale, there’s no doubt they would also be targeted.”

Police departments across the United States have embraced the use of China's DJI drones, citing their competitive prices and advanced features.

“This goes to the heart of the matter”

According to AgFunder News, an overseas news website focusing on the field of agricultural technology, Adam Welsh, global policy director of DJI, said, "Because the Senate Armed Services Committee discussed it in a closed-door meeting, it is difficult to know exactly why the provisions against DJI in the House version were deleted in the Senate revision. In recent weeks, many people who rely on our products to conduct business and make a living (including firefighters and other emergency service personnel) and people who use our drones for crop spraying have communicated a lot, hoping that these efforts will have an impact on decision-making. But we don’t know the exact situation yet."

Regarding subsequent developments, he said: "Since there are two versions of the NDAA, it will have to go into a reconciliation phase where representatives from the House and Senate will sit down and resolve the differences. And until the conference representatives are announced, you don't know who they are."

“If the DJI provision was in the Senate version of the bill, it would most likely be included in the final bill. Because it is not, they will have to debate the differences and try to figure out the best solution. What we can do is continue to communicate with all parties and reiterate that our products have no data security issues and we have passed multiple reviews. If they actually ban DJI, it will not only hurt DJI, but also affect multiple fields, including agriculture.”

Adam Welsh added: “With the August recess just around the corner and senators and representatives heading back to their districts, this is a great opportunity for people to connect with their legislators and explain why DJI drones are so important to their business.”

The Austin Fire Department in Texas, USA, demonstrates the control of a DJI Inspire 1 drone

"We are definitely not letting up, so we are working hard to meet with as many people as possible on Capitol Hill to explain our work on data security. We are also encouraging our customers to stay engaged and keep up the pressure."

As for when the NDAA will eventually pass, Welsh said: "We think the most likely outcome is that it will probably be a vote between November and January because we're so close to the election."

Adam Welsh said that if DJI is included in the "controlled list", existing drone models may not be affected, but given that DJI launches at least one new model every year, the move will still have a huge impact on the agricultural sector.

What is the US's motivation for targeting DJI? If the concern is about the so-called data security risks, why haven't other Chinese drone manufacturers become targets?

“This gets to the heart of the matter,” he said. “Initially, the debate started with data security issues, which we responded to. Then the debate turned to DJI’s dominance in the market and whether small American manufacturers can compete with us on price or quality. So I think that’s the main driver now.”

“If another Chinese company could reach DJI’s scale, there’s no doubt they would also be targeted.”

"Four out of every five agricultural drones in the United States are from DJI"

The version of the NDAA passed by the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee is different from the version passed by the House of Representatives, which may also indicate that the United States also needs to be cautious about banning DJI.

DJI currently holds a pivotal position in the U.S. drone market. Many industry insiders have expressed concerns about the negative impact that may be brought about by restrictions on DJI. They also emphasize the cost and performance advantages of DJI drones, and are even willing to pay out of their own pockets to purchase Chinese drones.

AgFunder News reported that DJI said in a statement, "We don't have specific market share data to provide, but rough estimates suggest that about four out of every five Agras agricultural drones used by farmers in the United States are DJI models."

American farmers have been steadily increasing their use of spraying drones in recent years, and according to DJI's U.S. distributor, in 2023, 3.7 million acres (about 22.46 million mu) of land across 41 states and 50 crops were sprayed mainly by Chinese-made drones.

The recently released "Agricultural Drone Industry White Paper" (2023/2024) shows that governments in many countries have begun to relax regulations affecting agricultural drones. These measures have helped farmers reduce the use of chemicals, save money, and increase yields.

DJI T50 agricultural drone sowing seeds in farmland

However, contrary to the trend, the United States wants to ban DJI, which is not good news for American farmers.

Taylor Moreland, CEO of Agri Spray Drones, the largest U.S. distributor of DJI spray drones, said, “Not allowing people to operate Chinese-made drones in rural communities will kill jobs in rural America.”

In addition to agriculture, DJI drones are also widely used. For example, police, firefighters and rescue workers across the United States also use DJI drones in various work scenarios and have given them high praise.

Previous data from scientific research institutes and institutions showed that Chinese drones have a market share of 90% in U.S. law enforcement agencies and as high as 92% in the field of emergency rescue.

Elise Stefanik, a Republican congresswoman from New York and one of the main sponsors of the NDAA that included content targeting DJI, once claimed that "DJI poses an unacceptable national security risk and Chinese-made drones should have been withdrawn from the United States long ago." He claimed that local government agencies showed that DJI leaked "critical infrastructure" data in the United States. However, foreign media have pointed out earlier that the congressman did not elaborate on this. In other words, he intended to ban DJI, but did not show the public any substantial evidence.

On the contrary, the remarks of other American politicians may just reveal their true intentions. John Moolenaar, a Republican congressman from Michigan and chairman of the House Committee on US-China Competition, said, "In addition to the national security risks posed by these drones, we also need a strong and competitive US drone industry."

Some American politicians are hoping to promote the development of the domestic drone industry in the United States by restricting companies like DJI that dominate the market.

At this stage, the US drone industry can hardly be associated with "powerful" and "competitive". Without DJI, it will be difficult for them to find alternatives.

Rantizo works with drone operators in 35 states in the U.S., who primarily deploy drones made by DJI and another Chinese company, XAG. "The message we want to convey to lawmakers is that putting DJI on the restricted list will have an impact on farmers and rural communities, where spraying drones have brought huge benefits," said Mariah Scott, CEO of Rantizo. "Without DJI, we have no competitive American-made alternatives in terms of cost or performance."

A report by Nikkei Asia in June this year pointed out that although public safety agencies have been banned from using federal grants to purchase Chinese drones, some public safety agencies, including Kentucky, New Jersey and Connecticut, have used their own budgets to purchase Chinese drones. Many said they would buy them even if tariffs were raised.

Some U.S. police officers said that raising tariffs would only harm the interests of users. At the same time, other officials and drone dealers said that the price of American drones is three to four times that of Chinese drones, but the technological level is not comparable.

Some American police officers also described the Chinese drone as a super luxury SUV, while the American drone was a more expensive compact car, "Which one would you rather choose?"

According to a report in The Washington Post in April this year, a US drone search and rescue coordinator pointed out that US manufacturers are "still years behind" and DJI has better performance, which has a significant impact on life and death during search and rescue. "If these anti-China laws take effect, it will cost American lives. This is not an exaggeration. I can give you the real names of some American citizens - if I was forced to use American drones, they would have died."