Petition challenges December ruling affecting foreign-made UAS and components
The U.S. drone industry continues to adjust to a significant regulatory shift following a December 2025 decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to expand its Covered List to include certain foreign-produced uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) and critical components. In response, Chinese drone manufacturer DJI has filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the ruling as it applies to the company’s products.
While the FCC’s action was not written to single out any one manufacturer, the decision has had outsized impact on DJI due to its scale in the global and U.S. drone markets.
FCC Covered List Expansion: What Changed
On December 22, 2025, the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau released a ruling adding certain foreign-made drones and UAS critical components to the Commission’s Covered List. The action was taken pursuant to authority under federal secure communications and supply chain laws, including provisions in the FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act.
Under FCC rules, equipment placed on the Covered List cannot receive new equipment authorization. Without FCC authorization, new products cannot be marketed, sold, or imported into the United States.
The December action did not immediately ground existing fleets. Drones that had already received authorization and were already in operation remain legal to fly. However, the ruling effectively freezes the introduction of new foreign-produced platforms or significant hardware revisions that require new FCC approval.
In subsequent guidance and FAQs, the FCC clarified aspects of the ruling and outlined limited exemptions in certain circumstances.
Importantly, the language of the order applies broadly to foreign-produced UAS and components. It does not name DJI specifically. However, as the world’s largest civilian drone manufacturer and a dominant supplier in multiple U.S. industry segments, DJI is among the companies directly affected.
The policy marks a shift from company-specific scrutiny toward broader supply chain and country-of-origin considerations. The market impact has been significant, particularly for commercial operators, public safety agencies, and integrators assessing long-term procurement strategies.
DJI’s Petition for Review
On February 20, 2026, DJI and DJI Service LLC filed a petition for review in the Ninth Circuit seeking to overturn the FCC’s ruling.
The filing asks the court to review the FCC’s action adding DJI’s communications and video surveillance equipment to the Covered List, stating that the ruling “purports to add ‘all communications and video surveillance equipment’ produced by DJI” to the Covered List, which would prevent new DJI products within scope from being marketed, sold, or imported into the United States
DJI further asserts that the FCC has used the ruling to justify restricting the importation of certain existing products and products outside the scope of the order. The company argues that the FCC exceeded its statutory authority, failed to observe required procedures, and violated the Fifth Amendment when it added DJI’s products to the Covered List.
The petition requests that the court “hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin, and set aside the Ruling.”
DJI’s Statement
In a statement attributed to a DJI spokesperson, the company said: “DJI, the world’s leader in civilian drones and creative camera technology, is challenging the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to prohibit DJI from marketing, selling, and importing new products into the United States. To protect its business and American consumers who rely on its products, DJI has filed a petition for review in the Ninth Circuit, contesting the FCC’s addition of DJI’s communications and video surveillance equipment to the Commission’s ‘Covered List.’”
The statement continues: “As outlined in the petition, the decision to list DJI’s products is procedurally and substantively flawed. The FCC can add products to the Covered List only when they present a national security threat, yet it has never identified any threat associated with DJI or its products. Despite repeated efforts to engage with the government, DJI has never been given the chance to provide information to address or refute any concerns. These procedural and substantive deficiencies violate the Constitution and federal law.”
DJI also emphasized customer impact: “The listing also causes great harm to DJI and its customers. It carelessly restricts DJI’s business in the U.S. and summarily denies U.S. customers access to its latest technology, while users elsewhere continue to benefit. Americans across industries—including small business owners, public safety officers, farmers, and creators—have been and will continue to be affected, losing access to the tools they rely on to make a living and save lives.”
The company added: “DJI takes the security of its products very seriously. The company has long advocated for independent, objective review of its products. As part of our commitment to the U.S. market and our customers across numerous industries, we will continue to engage constructively with the FCC and other stakeholders.”
Market and Industry Implications
Although the FCC’s order applies broadly to foreign-produced UAS and components, DJI’s scale means that the practical market effects have been substantial. The company has historically supplied a large share of commercial, public safety, agricultural, and creative drone platforms in the United States.
The policy shift has accelerated conversations about domestic manufacturing, supply chain transparency, and procurement diversification. Operators and agencies must now evaluate long-term fleet planning in light of authorization constraints on future foreign-produced systems.
The Ninth Circuit’s review will hopefully clarify how far the FCC’s Covered List authority extends in the UAS context. For manufacturers, resellers, integrators and operators, the case may shape the regulatory framework governing access to one of the world’s largest drone markets.
Read more:
Miriam McNabb is the Editor-in-Chief of DRONELIFE and CEO of JobForDrones, a professional drone services marketplace, and a fascinated observer of the emerging drone industry and the regulatory environment for drones. Miriam has penned over 3,000 articles focused on the commercial drone space and is an international speaker and recognized figure in the industry. Miriam has a degree from the University of Chicago and over 20 years of experience in high tech sales and marketing for new technologies.
For drone industry consulting or writing, Email Miriam.
TWITTER:@spaldingbarker
Subscribe to DroneLife here.
