Chinese drones, especially market dominators like DJI and Autel Robotics are beloved tools of hobbyists, farmers, infrastructure and utility inspectors, all through to first responders. However, they are under intense scrutiny in Washington, with states also cranking up legislation against them.  They’re not backing down though—they’re lawyering up, lobbying hard, and getting creative with distribution channels to keep their products in American airspace. 

Below is an in-depth look at each approach, with examples.

Lobbying Efforts in the U.S.

Chinese drone manufacturers have significantly ramped up their lobbying and public relations efforts to influence policymakers and counter bans:

  • Stepped-up Lobbying Spend

Market leader DJI sharply increased its Washington presence, spending about $1.5–1.6 million on lobbying in 2022–2023 alone​. The company hired multiple lobbying firms (such as Subject Matter, Vogel Group, and CLS Strategies) alongside in-house lobbyists to fend off proposed restrictions and highlight its economic contributions​. This makes DJI one of the most active lobbyists in the drone industry, aiming to “preserve its dominance of the drone marketplace” amid U.S. scrutiny​..

  • Industry Coalition Advocacy

U.S.-based distributors and users of Chinese drones have joined the lobbying push. In mid-2024, agricultural drone distributors (Pegasus, Rantizo, Drone Nerds, etc.) formed a coalition to urge Congress against blocking DJI​. They warned lawmakers that a ban would have “potentially devastating effects” on American farmers and businesses​. Coalition members not only engaged lawmakers directly but also mobilized customers via a “drone advocacy alliance” to contact representatives​. 

This grassroots tactic mirrors DJI’s own outreach – for example, DJI has encouraged its enthusiast user base to “Tell the Feds to Back Off” regarding bans​.

  • Public Relations and Reassurances

DJI’s executives and allies have mounted a PR campaign to rebut security allegations. The company dismisses the accusations behind proposed bans as “baseless … and xenophobic”​. 

DJI frequently highlights that its drones benefit thousands of American small businesses and first responders, arguing that overzealous policies could “stunt economic growth” and “handcuff public servants” who rely on its technology​. 

In statements to media and Congress, DJI has emphasized independent security audits of its products and noted that it “expanded the range of built-in user privacy controls” on its drones to protect data​. By underscoring such facts, lobbyists aim to convince regulators that Chinese-made drones can be used safely in the U.S. without compromising national security.

U.S. lawmakers have nonetheless advanced multiple bills targeting Chinese drones. For instance, the Countering CCP Drones Act (sponsored by Rep. Elise Stefanik) was folded into the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed by the House​. This provision would add DJI to the FCC’s “Covered List,” barring its drones from U.S. communications infrastructure and effectively preventing new DJI products from receiving FCC equipment authorization​. 

However, as 2024 came to a close, Congress decided not to go full-throttle—at least not yet. The key amendment that would’ve outright banned new DJI drones was quietly dropped from the final version of the NDAA. Instead, lawmakers gave DJI a one-year grace period to address national security concerns. The brand now has to prove it’s not a threat to U.S. security. How exactly that will be judged? Still unclear.

This doesn’t mean the pressure’s off entirely. The “Countering CCP Drones Act” is still alive and could resurface in future legislation. And with bipartisan support, it has staying power. So while DJI avoided the chopping block this time, the debate is far from over.

Legal Challenges to Restrictions On Chinese Drones

When lobbying alone hasn’t stopped punitive measures, foreign drone companies – especially DJI – have turned to legal action and formal disputes:

  • Challenging U.S. Blacklists

DJI has aggressively fought designations that paint it as a security threat. In October 2024, it filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense, contesting its addition to a Pentagon list of “Chinese Military Companies”​. 

DJI’s suit argues that this label is “erroneous” and unfair, noting the company is privately owned and not engaged with the PLA. The blacklisting, DJI claims, has “stigmatized [it] as a national security threat” and caused significant business losses, including cancelled contracts and bans on federal agency use​. By suing, DJI seeks to overturn the designation and mitigate damage to its U.S. operations​. 

(DoD’s blacklist stems from a 2021 law barring U.S. investments in firms tied to China’s military; being on it also amplifies scrutiny of DJI by other agencies.)

  • Opposing Import Bans

DJI has also pushed back on trade restrictions. The company revealed that U.S. Customs and Border Protection began stopping some DJI drone imports in late 2023 under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act​. DJI publicly denied any use of forced labor in its supply chain and is working to resolve the holds. 

In general, when export or import bans hit (such as the Commerce Department’s 2020 export blacklist against DJI​), the firms have issued denials and sought legal avenues to reverse or mitigate the actions. DJI’s ongoing court case against the Defense Department is a prime example of using U.S. courts to contest the factual basis of security sanctions.

  • Compliance and Appeals

Other Chinese drone makers have responded more quietly to U.S. sanctions, focusing on compliance or behind-the-scenes appeals. For example, Autel Robotics (Shenzhen-based manufacturer) was added to the Commerce Department’s Entity List in mid-2024, which bars U.S. companies from doing business with it​. Autel did not mount a public lawsuit; instead likely working through diplomatic or administrative channels to get the decision reconsidered. 

In some cases, Chinese firms also adjust their practices to address the cited concerns – effectively pursuing de facto legal remedies by removing the reasons for bans. (For instance, after U.S. agencies raised data security alarms in 2017, DJI released “Government Edition” drones with no data link, as a form of compliance to regain trust, rather than contesting the ban outright.)

So far, DJI’s litigation is a test case of whether Chinese companies can successfully challenge U.S. national-security-driven bans. The outcome remains uncertain, but the legal pushback signals these firms’ unwillingness to cede the market without exhausting all options.

Partnerships and Distribution Strategies by Chinese Drones

To retain access to the U.S. market under stricter rules, foreign drone makers have pursued partnerships, rebranding, and distribution maneuvers:

Joint Ventures and U.S. Subsidiaries

Autel Robotics, for instance, operates Autel Robotics USA based in Washington state and has American executives, partly to signal a degree of independence from its Chinese parent​
dronelife.com
. It has also partnered with Western tech companies (e.g. a mapping software tie-up with Pix4D) to integrate its drones into U.S.-made systems for public safety uses​. These collaborations and a U.S. presence help Autel pitch itself as a more “localized” provider. Similarly, DJI has long maintained a large office in California and an R&D center in Palo Alto​, engaging with U.S. enterprise software partners and resellers. 

While such subsidiaries cannot erase a product’s Chinese origin, they can streamline compliance with U.S. regulations and build relationships with distributors who rely on these drones. Notably, before regulatory pressure intensified, DJI had even struck an alliance with Axon (maker of Taser and police tech) to sell drone-integrated systems to U.S. law enforcement – a partnership that was later shelved amid security concerns. The broader strategy is to team up with trusted U.S. intermediaries (be it companies or individuals) to reassure customers and keep sales channels open, even if direct sales are curtailed.

Alternate Market Focus

As a parallel approach, Chinese manufacturers have diversified their market focus in case U.S. access dwindles. Consumer drone makers have put more emphasis on Asia, Europe, and developing markets where regulations are friendlier. 

For example, DJI launched certain models in Europe first and invested in expanding its footprint in Asia. While this doesn’t directly circumvent U.S. rules, it’s a distribution strategy to reduce reliance on the American market. Nonetheless, the U.S. remains a lucrative arena (over 50% of drones sold in the U.S. are Chinese-made​), so completely pulling out is not an option – hence the continued efforts to find workarounds and maintain at least an indirect U.S. presence.

Product and Operational Changes

Chinese drone makers have also made technical and operational changes to address U.S. national security concerns, hoping to preempt or alleviate regulatory restrictions. Key modifications include:

  • Data Localization and Privacy Features

Responding to fears that drones could send sensitive data to China, manufacturers implemented features to keep data within the U.S. DJI, for instance, added a “Local Data Mode” to its flight apps, which when enabled “severs the connection” between the drone and any internet servers​. It’s basically a kill switch that disconnects the flight app from all networking functions. This offline mode ensures no flight logs, photos, or videos leave the device unless the user explicitly opts in. 

DJI also noted that even under normal operation, no flight data is automatically sent to China – any cloud storage of U.S. users’ data is done on U.S.-based servers by default​. The company has built encryption into its drones and invites independent cybersecurity audits (like a 2023 FTI Consulting audit) to verify that user data cannot be accessed by unauthorized parties​. 

Similarly, Anzu’s U.S.-market drones (based on DJI tech) are configured so that all telemetry and imagery stay on servers in Virginia, with third-party penetration testers hired to confirm no data leaks to foreign servers​. These steps are meant to directly counter the “spy drone” narrative by showing that data can be localized and secured on American soil.

  • “Made in USA” Manufacturing Initiatives

To mitigate concerns over Chinese supply chains (and to comply with U.S. procurement laws), Chinese firms have set up partial manufacturing in the United States. DJI announced in 2019 that it would open an assembly line in California – its first outside China – to build certain drone models for the U.S. market​. 

By doing final assembly in a Cerritos, CA facility, DJI aimed to meet Trade Agreements Act requirements and enable government agencies to buy its drones as “U.S.-made” or at least non-Chinese origin​. This was a direct response to U.S. agency bans on “made in China” drones. 

Autel undertook a similar effort: in 2020 it released a special EVO II Dual Enterprise bundle “Made in USA”, stating that while the airframe is built in Shenzhen, final assembly and testing are done in Washington state with a high percentage of U.S. parts (FLIR thermal cameras, U.S. made accessories, etc.)​ The package was marketed to public sector customers as a “packable unmanned aircraft made in USA with foreign and US components and labor”​. 

By localizing some manufacturing and being transparent about components, Autel tried to allay fears and comply with government content requirements. In practice, these moves have had mixed success – for example, despite Autel’s U.S. assembly, states like Florida still banned its drones due to the company’s Chinese origins​. But establishing American manufacturing operations demonstrates a good-faith effort by these companies to adapt to U.S. security standards.

  • Product Line Adjustments

Chinese drone makers have also created specialized product lines or tweaks to meet U.S. government needs – like the “Government Edition” DJI drone variant we mentioned earlier, that features permanently disabled networking hardware (no Wi-Fi/Bluetooth) and firmware that prevents data transmission – tailored for federal agencies that demanded zero connectivity. 

DJI and others have also removed certain sensors or modules from U.S. versions of drones if those components raised security flags (for instance, swapping out a Chinese-made communication chip for a vetted component when selling to sensitive customers). While details are often kept quiet, manufacturers have shown willingness to customize or strip down features to address specific national security qualms. 

Combined with geofencing to prevent flights over sensitive sites and cooperation with U.S. airspace authorities, these product changes are meant to demonstrate a commitment to safe integration of Chinese-made drones in America​.

Geofencing Update: DJI Removes Automatic No-Fly Zones, Aligns With FAA Data

Overall, Chinese drone firms are becoming more like “glocal” companies – global in scale but willing to localize data handling, production, and even branding to satisfy U.S. regulators. This technical and operational flexibility is a core part of their strategy to remain viable under tight scrutiny. Future legislation (such as the final version of the NDAA provisions and any new drone security bills) will be key in determining whether these strategies suffice or if Chinese-manufactured drones will be largely shut out of American skies​.

Government and Law Enforcement Use of Foreign Drones 

Government and public safety agencies in the U.S. have widely adopted drones for police, fire, and other operations – and most of those drones have historically been Chinese-made (primarily DJI). However, security and policy concerns have led to bans in some states and at the federal level, even as many agencies still rely on foreign drones through 2025.

Federal Agencies

At the federal level, there is now an effective ban on Chinese-made drones. Congress has banned federal agencies from acquiring drones from China (with limited exceptions for certain uses)​. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2024  prohibits any federal government agency or program from purchasing or using drones made in China or other adversary countries​. This builds on earlier restrictions (since 2019, the Pentagon and Department of Defense were barred from Chinese drones​). 

As a result, federal law enforcement and emergency agencies (FBI, DHS, etc.) have been phasing out DJI and Autel drones. For example, the U.S. Department of the Interior in 2020 grounded its fleet of about 800 DJI drones due to security directives​. Some federal agencies had interim exceptions – Interior allowed limited emergency use of Chinese drones for critical incidents like wildfires, despite the grounding​. But overall, by 2025, federal use of foreign-made drones is largely disallowed, forcing agencies to turn to approved U.S.-made alternatives (or discontinue some drone programs).

States Banning Chinese Drones

A growing number of U.S. states have enacted laws to restrict or ban government use of drones made by “countries of concern” (chiefly China). These bans typically apply to state and local agencies (including police, fire, and other departments) and mandate transition to approved domestic or allied manufacturers. 

Key examples in 2024–2025 include:

  • Florida – Florida was the first state to ban Chinese-made drones for all state and local agencies. Senate Bill 44 (2021) took effect in 2022–2023, banning government agencies from purchasing or using drones not made by an approved list of manufacturers​. This meant popular DJI drones had to be retired. Before the ban, DJI products were ubiquitous – over 90% of Florida law enforcement agencies had used DJI drones by 2022​. After the ban, that share dropped to about 14% (only a few agencies obtained waivers or had legacy use)​. Florida agencies have replaced their fleets with U.S. or French models (e.g. Skydio, Parrot) and the state provided funding to help — for instance, Orange County Sheriff’s Office spent $580,000 to swap out 18 DJI drones and was reimbursed ~$400,000 by the state​. Florida’s ban caused short-term disruption (agencies described the forced switch as “an absolute mess” initially​), but by 2025 Florida public safety agencies are essentially Chinese-drone free.
  • Mississippi – Mississippi implemented a new law effective Jan 1, 2025 requiring all state agencies to buy drones only from U.S. manufacturers​. The law explicitly bans drones made in China or containing significant Chinese components​. It even provides a 10% bidding preference to Mississippi-based drone companies to encourage local industry​. This law forces Mississippi agencies to phase out any DJI/Autel drones in favor of approved American-made models going forward.
  • Arkansas – Arkansas enacted a similar prohibition: a 2023 state law forbids public entities from purchasing drones manufactured or assembled by companies tied to countries deemed national security risks (explicitly naming China and Russia)​. This effectively bans DJI and Autel for Arkansas police, state agencies, and other local government units. Arkansas agencies must procure from non-Chinese sources (such as the “Blue UAS” list of approved drones).
  • Tennessee – Tennessee has also banned its agencies from using Chinese drones, in a law modeled after Florida’s. This restricts state and local departments to use only vetted non-Chinese drones​. Tennessee’s public safety drone programs have had to transition away from DJI, although like Florida, this was reported to be challenging for agencies with limited budgets.
  • Nevada – Nevada enacted a new drone law as of Jan 1, 2025 that, while not an outright ban yet, gives the state authority to ban certain vendors (like DJI) for state/local purchases​. Senate Bill 11 (SB11) empowers the state’s Department of Public Safety (DPS) to dictate which drones agencies can buy and restrict how they use them, anticipating potential bans on Chinese-made drones​. In practice, Nevada is expected to align with other states in barring Chinese drone tech for government use in the near future.

Several other states have considered or introduced similar bans. For example, Texas debated a ban in 2023 (Senate Bill 541) that would have barred any government in the state from using Chinese-made drones, but it failed to pass into law​. States like North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana have also explored restrictions, though not all have enacted them as of 2025. Overall, by early 2025 at least four states (FL, AR, TN, MS) have active bans on foreign-made (Chinese) drones for government use, and Nevada is moving in that direction​. These states are mandating a switch to U.S. or allied manufacturers, often providing funding or grace periods for agencies to comply.

States and Agencies Still Using Foreign-Made Drones

Despite the growing number of bans, many states and law enforcement agencies continue to use Chinese-made drones in 2025, due to their prior investments and lack of local restrictions. Not every state has banned them, and in those without bans, DJI and Autel remain prevalent in agency fleets:

  • Texas (Local Law Enforcement): Texas has no state ban (as noted, the proposal didn’t pass), so most police and sheriff departments there still rely on DJI drones. ManyTexas police departments use DJI for their UAV units​. Agencies like the Austin Police Department had fleets comprised entirely of DJI drones as of 2024. Replacing them would be costly (Austin PD estimated $120,000 to replace its DJI fleet)​. To mitigate security concerns, Texas departments are taking steps like installing offline flight software and ensuring no data is sent to China​. This reflects a broader trend in states without bans: rather than abandon Chinese drones, agencies try to secure them (firewalls, third-party apps) so they can keep using these affordable, capable devices.
  • New Jersey: New Jersey law enforcement’s drone usage highlights how dependent many agencies still are on DJI/Autel. In NJ, as of 2023, more than 500 out of 550 drones operated by state and local police were made by DJI or Autel – over 90% of the law enforcement drone fleet​. New Jersey had (as of 2025) no ban in place, so agencies continued using these drones.
  • New York: New York has not banned Chinese drones as of 2025, so agencies like NYPD and FDNY, as well as state emergency management, use their platforms. Lawmakers in NY have expressed concerns, but no statewide prohibition exists yet. In fact, around 86% of drones used by New York police departments are manufactured by DJI. See more NY drone statistics.
  • California: California, another state without a ban, also sees extensive DJI use by public safety. Large city police departments (Los Angeles, etc.) and state agencies have DJI Matrice and Mavic drones in service. California has focused more on regulating drone operations than on the drone origin, so Chinese-made drones remain in use.
  • Other States: Majority of states in the U.S. still use predominantly Chinese-made drones in government fleets.  On average, 85% of drones acquired state agencies between 2010 and 2022 were Chinese​. As of 2025, aside from the handful of states with bans, most others (over 30 states) continue to operate DJI or Autel drones in police departments, fire departments, DOTs, and other agencies. Many local agencies simply have not found domestic replacements that match the price-performance of DJI, leading them to hold onto existing fleets as long as legally allowed​.

Even in states with bans, some agencies had temporary exceptions or grace periods. For example, Florida’s ban initially left some agencies scrambling – some law enforcement units got short extensions to continue using a DJI drone for critical missions until a replacement arrived. Generally, though, once a state ban kicks in, agencies must retire or mothball the foreign drones. In Florida’s case, by 2023 nearly all government DJI drones were shelved or repurposed for training only, and active operations shifted to approved U.S./ally drones.

Waivers Workarounds and What’s Next in U.S. Drone Procurement Policy

The push to remove Chinese drones has led to several notable trends and exceptions:

  • Replacement Programs: Agencies are investing in domestic alternatives. Skydio (US) and Parrot (FR) drones have seen a surge in government procurement thanks to “Blue UAS” approved lists and state funding. For instance, Florida and other states provided funds or reimbursements for agencies to buy approved drones after banning DJI​. However, agencies often note the cost is higher and capabilities sometimes more limited than the Chinese models​.
  • Operational Waivers: Some exceptions are carved out for critical uses. Federal law allows waivers for using banned drones in special circumstances (e.g. a life-threatening emergency where only a DJI drone is immediately available). Similarly, a few state laws permit limited use of existing Chinese drones until a suitable replacement is found, or for non-mission-critical purposes like training. These exceptions are relatively narrow – the overall trend is toward eliminating Chinese platforms, but not at the expense of public safety in an emergency.
  • Federal Rulemaking: In addition to legislation, regulators are considering new rules. The U.S. Department of Commerce to sought to restrict foreign involvement in the drone supply chain in its  Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) published on January 3, 2025 ​. This could lead to regulations on certain foreign-made components or software in drones used in the U.S. (not just whole drones). Stakeholders had until March 4 to comment on these proposed rules​. The outcome may create further exceptions or requirements – for example, perhaps allowing existing foreign drones to be used but banning new purchases, or requiring specific cybersecurity mitigations for any foreign technology.

By the end of Q1 2025, foreign-made drones (chiefly Chinese) still comprise the majority of drones used in the U.S., including by many government and law enforcement agencies, but there is intense pressure through laws and policies to curtail this. A handful of states have outlawed Chinese drones for official use, and the federal government has imposed a broad ban on them in government operations​. Nonetheless, in states without such bans, agencies continue to use DJI and Autel drones out of practical necessity, while implementing workarounds to address security concerns​.

FAQs About Chinese Drones In The U.S.

  • Why is the U.S. cracking down on Chinese drone manufacturers like DJI and Autel?

The U.S. government is worried that Chinese drones pose national security risks, especially concerns about surveillance and data leaks to China. These worries have led to federal bans and pressure on state agencies to stop using drones from Chinese companies.

  • How are Chinese drone companies responding to these U.S. bans?

They’re fighting back with everything from lobbying and public relations to legal challenges and rebranding. DJI, for example, has been very vocal and proactive in trying to prove its drones are safe and beneficial to U.S. users.

  • What kind of lobbying efforts have DJI and others launched?

They’ve spent millions on lobbying, formed coalitions with U.S.-based users, and even encouraged hobbyists and farmers to contact their lawmakers. Their message is that banning Chinese drones will hurt American businesses and first responders who depend on them.

  • Are Chinese drone companies taking legal action in the U.S.?

Yes, DJI has filed lawsuits, including one against the U.S. Department of Defense, arguing it’s wrongly labeled as a “Chinese military company.” These legal fights aim to undo blacklists and lift bans that restrict business.

  • Have Chinese drone companies changed their products for the U.S. market?

Absolutely. They’ve added features like “Local Data Mode” that prevent drones from connecting to the internet, moved some data to U.S.-based servers, and even built U.S.-only models with stripped-down connectivity for security reasons.

  • Can Chinese drones still be used by U.S. government agencies?

Not at the federal level. Most federal agencies are banned from buying or using Chinese-made drones, though there are rare exceptions for emergencies. State policies vary—some states ban them completely, while others still allow their use.

  • Which U.S. states have banned Chinese drones in government use?

Florida, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Tennessee have all banned them. Nevada has also passed a law that could lead to restrictions soon. These states are encouraging a switch to U.S. or allied-made drones, often with state funding.

  • Are there any states still using Chinese drones?

Yes, many states like Texas, New Jersey, New York, and California still use DJI and Autel drones in law enforcement and emergency services as of early 2025. These agencies often add cybersecurity measures rather than stop using the drones entirely.

  • Why do some agencies still use DJI and Autel drones despite the bans?

It mostly comes down to cost and performance. Chinese drones are widely viewed as more affordable and capable than many alternatives, so agencies hang onto them as long as legally allowed, or until replacements become viable.

  • What are agencies doing to replace banned drones?

Some are switching to U.S.-approved brands like Skydio or Parrot, often with help from state funds. However, replacements tend to be more expensive and sometimes less capable, so the transition hasn’t been smooth everywhere.

  • Can agencies get waivers to keep using Chinese drones?

Yes, in limited cases. Some laws allow temporary waivers for critical missions or training purposes. But generally, once bans kick in, continued use is heavily restricted.

  • What’s the “Local Data Mode” on DJI drones?

It’s a setting that completely cuts off the drone app from the internet—think of it like airplane mode. No flight logs, images, or video are transmitted anywhere unless the user opts in manually, which helps address privacy concerns.

  • What’s the current status of the Countering CCP Drones Act?

The act hasn’t fully passed into law—yet. While parts of it were added to the 2025 defense bill, the most extreme measure (a total ban on new DJI drones) was dropped. DJI now has a one-year grace period to prove it’s not a national security threat.

  • What happened with DJI and the Pentagon’s blacklist?

In 2024, DJI sued the U.S. Department of Defense for labeling it as a “Chinese Military Company.” DJI says it’s privately owned and not affiliated with the Chinese military, and it’s fighting to remove that designation.

  • What is the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, and how does it affect drones?

This law targets any products linked to forced labor in China. In late 2023, some DJI drone shipments were held up by U.S. Customs under this law. DJI denies using forced labor and is trying to clear up the issue.

  • How are states helping agencies transition away from Chinese drones?

Some states, like Florida, offer funding or reimbursements to help cover the cost of replacing DJI fleets. It’s not always a smooth switch, but the financial support helps agencies stay operational.

  • What’s next for Chinese drones in the U.S.?

More restrictions may be on the horizon. The Department of Commerce is considering new rules about foreign parts and software in drones, which could impact even more devices. The debate isn’t over, and the policy landscape is still shifting.