The running saga of Chinese drone makers’ – led by the hugely popular DJI – fate in the North American commercial drone market is something that will not end very soon. And by the time it does, it may have drone technology stakeholders right down the middle.

That is if the two opinions that emerged at the weekend from two prominent drone organisations in the country are any indication.

If you’ve been living under a rock in the past eight years, DJI – like most Chinese technology companies – has been getting grief from the federal US government over allegations of espionage. The government accuses DJI of passing over the data its drones collect to the Chinese government back home; an allegation the drone manufacturer strenuously denies.

That has not stopped the Americans from imposing tariffs on drones coming out of China; actually, the issue escalated last year, into a proposed bill to ban all Chinese made drones from operating in the USA. It was a development that got divided reactions from the wider drone community: while federal departments had no choice but to ground Chinese drones as ordered, most independent end users are not happy at being forced to resort to what they are inferior drone products.

But last week, the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), the largest association for unmanned aircraft in the world, published an opinion piece, warning the drone community in the USA that the ban on DJI drones in the country was coming, and there was nothing anybody could do about it.

Written by the association president and CEO Michael Robbins, the piece has received backlash from stakeholders who came across it, with the Law Enforcement Drone Association (LEDA) publishing its own opinion piece in response.

We are reproducing the two hot takes in full below, starting with the AUVSI piece. It is not popcorn time stuff, considering that lives and businesses are at stake; and what happens to DJI in the North American drone market could cascade down to other areas as well, and change the commercial drone industry as we know it.

Let’s hope you get clarity from this.

The AUVSI statement

The United States drone industry stands at a critical juncture. With the likely restriction of drones and certain critical components originating from the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the time for decisive action is now.

The security vulnerabilities associated with PRC drones are well-documented within the national security community, and the threat they pose to US interests cannot be overstated. Federal agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Department of Defence (DoD), Department of Commerce, and Department of Treasury have all raised serious national security concerns with PRC drones and drone components.

While much of this information remains classified, there are efforts underway to declassify certain information on the security vulnerabilities and threats associated with PRC drones so that information can be more available for public consumption.

The Trump Administration’s commitment to scrutinizing companies aligned with the PRC military, those on the DoD’s 1260H list, is clear. Those who dismiss this as mere rhetoric are overlooking the real and immediate risks or are wilfully ignoring what is right in front of them.

While some voices in the industry have attempted to spin Section 1709 of the FY2025 National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA) as a temporary victory for PRC drone operators, the reality is quite different. This provision will likely lead to the FCC adding PRC drones to its Covered Entity List, further restricting their use in the U.S. market.

The capabilities of U.S. and allied nation drones have advanced remarkably in recent years. Many American and allied-made systems now match or surpass their PRC counterparts in terms of performance and innovation. However, higher costs remain a significant hurdle.

This is a classic catch-22: U.S. and allied drone manufacturers cannot lower costs without scaling production, yet achieving scale is impossible as long as PRC companies flood the market with subsidized drones.

To break this cycle, American drone manufacturers must take proactive steps to diversify their supply chains and reduce reliance on PRC components. Waiting to be reactive could very well prove to be costly.

The recent sanctions on Skydio by the PRC, which disrupted their battery supply line, and the U.S. Treasury sanctions on T-Motor – once a critical motor supplier for many U.S. drone manufacturers—serve as stark warnings.

The Defence Innovation Board called this “a canary in the coal mine” moment. These disruptions highlight the precariousness of maintaining supply chains with adversarial nations. Not only are the drones and certain critical components a national security risk due to the inherent nature of connected devices controlled by an adversarial nation, but the supply chain of all components could be weaponized and cut off at a moment’s notice.

It is not only manufacturers who need to prepare for these impending restrictions. Public safety agencies, drone service providers, and other operators with investments in PRC drones must take the national security threat, and the likely restriction of PRC drones and certain critical components, seriously and begin planning now.

The industry cannot afford to be caught off guard. And there is no excuse to be caught off guard – the red light is blinking. Don’t ignore it.

While the challenges ahead may seem daunting, there are clear steps that can be taken to mitigate risks and adapt to a new market reality. The Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) has long advocated for strengthening the U.S. and allied-nation drone industry.

Our Partnership for Drone Competitiveness effort outlines actionable strategies to enhance domestic and allied manufacturing capabilities and build resilient supply chains. We have repeatedly underscored the urgent need for a robust and secure drone ecosystem, free from foreign influence and manipulation.

To those in the public safety sector and commercial drone operations who may be impacted by these changes, we understand the difficulties you face. The transition away from PRC systems will not be without its challenges, but the long-term benefits to national security, supply chain stability, and operational integrity are well worth the effort.

Now is the time to make thoughtful decisions, invest in American and allied-made technologies, and align with trusted nations to ensure a strong and secure future for our industry.

The U.S. drone industry has an opportunity to redefine itself, to become a beacon of innovation and security on the global stage. But this will only happen if we collectively recognize the risks, adapt, and take concrete, proactive actions today to ensure our future success. The choice is yours to make – choose wisely.

LEDA Response

And LEDA’s response was hard hitting. The association president John Beal did not pull any punches in his response.

After reading the opinion article written by AUVSI President Michael Robbins, I was extremely disheartened at the tone, presentation of “facts” and overt gaslighting regarding legislation related to the use of drones from China. 

The Law Enforcement Drone Association (LEDA) remains platform agnostic, and we urge AUVSI, which stands for the Association of Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (note what the “I” stands for) to take the same agnostic position. 

Our stance has always been to let our member agencies and pilots decide what platform works best for them and their communities at large. We make this stand and statement to drive market competition, innovation and the end user’s ability to make an informed decision about drone platforms based upon capability, price and mission. 

We put America first by allowing our first responders to use whatever platform they deem has the best technology is to preserve life and its quality for their communities.

I am just angry now.  We have read and heard numerous times Mr. Robbins’ assertion that AUVSI doesn’t support an outright ban of drones manufactured in China, but they continually send representatives to testify in support of both state and federal bills with a “sunset period”, where after a certain number of years, users are no longer allowed to use the Chinese drones they already have in their possession. 

To what does that equate? A ban.

I have watched, with my own eyes, AUVSI representatives testify in support of banning Chinese drones for public safety agencies in various states.

In his second sentence, Mr. Robbins states; “With the likely restriction of drones and certain critical components originating from the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the time for decisive action is now.” 

The irony here is that he is insinuating that random legislators just so happen to be close to banning these drones and we need to be ready. The reality here is that his organization has been at the forefront of the attempts to get them banned and he is coming in here like the “beacon of readiness and light” saying that we need to prepare for this.

I do not think he, or legislators, truly understand that when these bans happen, public safety drone programs will be shut down. They will not be able to operate. They will not have drones to fly to help save lives and mitigate risk to agencies and the public at large.

There will not be readily available, capable non-banned drones that can replace, as most of these bills are “rip and replace” with no funding attached. They are unfunded mandates and because of them, people may lose their lives. Elderly citizens and young children may not be found when they wander off into cold weather and freeze to death. 

This happens almost once a week in cities across the nation. They are found by drones and cared for by emergency responders once located.

Tactical teams will not be able to use inexpensive and capable interior drones used to visually clear structures of armed/barricaded suspects. Instead, agencies will have to blindly send in human tactical operators and put them in the line of fire or attack.

Tactical teams used to send in human operators, and while effective still, we have lost tactical operators to ambush once inside of structures when drones were not employed. LAPD Officer Randy Simmons was shot and killed during a tactical incident while making entry into a home in Los Angeles shortly before I joined the department. 

If only we had capable drones back in 2007-2008 to do that job, maybe we could have avoided that tragedy. We do have this tech now and strongly encourage its use daily.

Agencies have been deploying interior drones effectively now for under $2,000, instead of domestic versions that cost anything between $15-25,000 per aircraft. If my math is correct, that is seven- to ten times the cost of how agencies are currently operating effectively. AUVSI wants to rip that away and make agencies pay seven- to ten times the money to buy one drone. Where is the logic?

In Mr. Robbins’ third sentence, he states without any evidence; “The security vulnerabilities associated with PRC drones are well-documented within the national security community, and the threat they pose to U.S. interests cannot be overstated.” 

Then he goes on to state that it is all classified and such. Another attempt to gaslight when multiple independent studies, including by the Department of the Interior, have been conducted of specific Chinese aircraft and shown that data is not pushed back to China. 

This is akin to saying, “These things are bad, I can’t tell you why, but we should ban them.” 

No. We do not believe you. We welcome the stated clause in Section 1709 of NDAA of 2024 mandating a study of DJI and Autel drones for data security.  If, in fact, the drones are literally sending data back against the will of the pilot, then that should be known about and addressed. 

Everything up to now is speculation and a “possibility” or a “potential threat”.  But what we do know now for a fact is that agencies across the globe are using these drones to save lives.

Full stop.

Over 1,000 lives have been saved using drones according to this Drone Rescue Map. Now this map states it doesn’t account for which type of drone was used, but considering that Chinese drones account for about 80 percent of the public safety market, I imagine they add up to about 80 percent or more of the lives saved.

Is AUVSI really pushing to take away these life-saving platforms away from programs in the US? Is the pursuit of regulatory capture worth American lives?

Mr. Robbins states that US drone manufacturers “now match or surpass” their Chinese competitors. LEDA desires this to be true. Believe me. We strongly desire for there to be solid US made drones to compete in the market. But I challenge Mr. Robbins to demonstrate one apples-to-apples comparison of an American drone to its Chinese counterpart and show me where our American drones meet or exceed the capabilities of Chinese drones.

Do not show me specs. Show me real world capability and performance. Even the Chinese drone manufacturers list specs that are not really attainable like flight times and such. But in my ten years of operating drones in the public safety sector and literally seeing them side-by-side, I have yet to see an American drone outperform a Chinese one.  And until that day comes, banning the perfectly capable drones our teams across the country have is not only reckless, it’s negligent.

Also, current programs have a grab bag of different types of drones for different uses.  If these types of bills pass, agencies would be forced to give up sometimes up to ten drones for the price of one non-banned replacement. This creates a devastating effect on operability for the program. Instead of having ten drones like they used to, they would instead only have one.

This is not sustainable. The reason they might need so many of them is that in the event they fly one into a house on a tactical mission and it goes down for some reason, they have back up drones to send in immediately to take over. What Mr. Robbins is pushing through his lobbying efforts would mean tactical teams only get ONE shot to get it right, or they have to send team members into harm’s way.  

Search and Rescue teams use these drones to fly in precarious weather and topographical conditions. If forced away from them, they would be forced to use drones that cannot fly far enough without losing connectivity.  Believe me. I have seen it with my own eyes. Allied manufactured drones lose connection and either fly away or return home sometimes only a few hundred feet away. This would cost lives.

US manufacturers are not at a point where they can produce drones at the level they’re seeking to demand with their lobbying efforts. So banning them, even if in three years, only creates a void in the industry where teams cannot get their hands on drones in a timely manner and would not be able to deploy them by the time their current ones are banned.

And beyond public safety, who then produces any consumer drones for our commercial uses like film, television, insurance adjustors, real estate agents, sporting events, agriculture, construction, drone service providers and the list goes on. No American manufacturer or allied nation’s company produces drones for this sector.

Entire sections of industry would be scuttled. It will be a lot of years before we have a company rise up and be able to produce at scale the demand created by these regulations. When asked by podcast hosts Greg Reverdiau and Haye Kesteloo on the PiXL Podcast about the timeline for being able to produce at scale to meet the demand set by an outright ban, BRINC CEO Blake Resnik said, “If budget is truly not a constraint, and that’s a big ‘if’, but if it was truly not a constraint, I think something like three years is possible.”

LEDA has over 3,200 members across the globe and grows every day. I can say, with certainty, that almost every one of our members is angered by the legislation happening in their states and our country borne from greed and in an attempt to limit their ability to save lives.

LEDA exists to set a standard of excellence for the training and use of drones in the public safety sector. Excellence is not telling our members that they should settle for anything but the best in technology and tactics. Let us make America the best, instead of setting us back five years and expecting us to preserve the same quality of life using technology.

Let agencies choose the tech that best suits their needs and the needs and budgets of the communities they serve. Encourage and incentivise US innovation, do not penalise communities and put lives at risk.

That is all.