In this Op-Ed, Michael Robbins, President and CEO of the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), offers an industry perspective on the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report titled “Federal Lands: Effects of Interior’s Policies on Foreign-Made Drones.” This response comes in the wake of last week’s published statement from drone manufacturer DJI, addressing the report’s findings.
Here, Robbins provides insights into the broader implications of foreign-made drones, particularly those produced by companies identified as national security risks, and argues for a more robust investment in U.S. drone manufacturing to safeguard the industry and national security. DRONELIFE neither makes nor accepts payment for guest posts.
The Urgent Need to Support U.S. Drone Manufacturers and National Security
by AUVSI President and CEO Michael Robbins
A recent GAO report examined the Department of Interior’s use of foreign-made drones and identified challenges the Department faces in rapidly transitioning its fleet of unsecure drones to secure platforms in compliance with federal law.
Astonishingly but not surprisingly, DJI—which has been identified by the U.S. Department of Defense and intelligence agencies as a People’s Republic of China (PRC) military company—has pounced on the report of challenges faced by U.S. government agencies to promote PRC protectionism in the U.S.
Let’s set the record clear: the primary challenge of identified in the GAO report—the challenge of U.S. drone companies to readily supply large quantities of drones—is due to the flooding of subsidized, unsecure DJI drones into the U.S. market, distorting the marketplace for non-PRC drone companies. This has led to a lack of demand signal, purchases, and investment that is absolutely needed before drone manufacturing can scale.
PRC drone companies like DJI and Autel Robotics have benefited from robust direct government investment and sophisticated market mechanisms, which has allowed them to flood the global market with subsidized drones, use their monopolistic position to harm U.S. drone manufacturers, and then manipulate the market to their advantage by preventing access of U.S. component manufacturers into PRC-controlled industry supply chains.
The result is a series of threats to the United States, including threats to national security, to our position as a global leader in aviation, to our aviation workforce, and to our fundamental principles of human rights. This problem is well understood by U.S. government agencies, which have issued many warnings about the reliance on PRC drones with increasing frequency and levels of alarm, specificity, and urgency.
Among stakeholders across many industries that extend far beyond drones, there is broad agreement that the U.S. faces a stark choice: continue to buy unsecure, subsidized technologies from PRC companies, or to invest in U.S. and allied products and support fair market competition.
The first choice is to maintain a status quo that has failed U.S. and allied companies and their customers. Still, there is a powerful lobby of PRC companies, PRC-established shell companies and tariff circumventors, and resellers and “affiliates” in the U.S. who have benefitted from a massive market share and who are fighting behind the scenes to maintain it. They would have us exacerbate the challenges faced by DOI and other critical drone users, depress U.S. economic activity, and put national security at risk.
The second path is to address the problem head on. The U.S. government can buy secure drones at market prices and investors can support the growth of U.S. companies. Leveling the playing field will allow industry to scale and drive down costs and enhance innovation.
It is far past time for U.S. government agencies and other drone users conducting security-sensitive missions to end their reliance on a hostile government for access to critical technologies. Congress has enacted several laws, including the American Security Drone Act, that will strengthen our national security by enforcing a transition to secure drones.
Much more must be done to diversify the market. Bolstering new drone manufacturing capabilities and the associated workforce will require infrastructure and capital expenditures. Future legislation should focus on creating incentives for U.S. companies directly, and indirectly through demand generation, by providing grants, tax incentives, loan guarantees, and other mechanisms to spur that spending would accelerate growth and development that would have otherwise been delayed or denied.
The U.S. government has taken action to level the playing field for other critical technologies with success, including solar panels, semiconductors, and electric vehicles. It is a matter of when, not if, the PRC will take advantage of the U.S.’s reliance on their supply chains as a weapon of war, as they have in other markets. The time has come for the U.S. government and investors to similarly to support the U.S. drone and component marketplace before it is too late.
Read more:
- DJI Responds to GAO Report: Drone Restrictions Undermine DOI Operations
- House Passes Countering CCP Drones Act: Now What?
- Lawmakers Urge Fairfax County to End Use of DJI Drones Due to National Security Concerns
- Lawmakers Call for Declassification of National Security Risks Posed by Chinese-Made Drones
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.