Congress Passes NDAA FY25: Implications for Chinese-Made Drones, U.S. Manufacturing, and National Security
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2025, now awaiting President Biden’s signature, includes significant provisions affecting the drone industry. The bill has sparked responses from major stakeholders, including the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) and China’s DJI, the world’s leading drone manufacturer. Below is a breakdown of key provisions and industry reactions.
Chinese-Made Drones Under Scrutiny
One of the most-discussed provisions in the NDAA addresses drones manufactured in China, particularly by DJI and Autel. Congress has mandated a risk review by a U.S. national security agency, which could lead to these drones being added to the FCC’s Covered List if they are deemed a national security risk. That would mean that new drone models could not use FCC bandwidth for communications.
Chelsie Jeppson, Director of Communications at AUVSI, clarified the process in a LinkedIn post, noting, “Congress’s decision to assign the risk review and assessment to the experts at a national security agency is the right move.” She added that the agency responsible for the assessment could include DHS, DOD, DNI, NSA, and/or FBI, as defined in related U.S. code.
Jeppson also highlighted two specific aspects of the legislation:
- The bill explicitly includes subsidiaries, affiliates, and technology-sharing agreements of Chinese drone companies.
- The risk assessment report must be delivered to Congress in an unclassified form.
DJI expressed concerns about these provisions in a blog post, stating, “Drones manufactured in China are singled out for scrutiny… If no agency conducts a study to determine risk within one year, the legislation states that DJI and another Chinese manufacturer would automatically be added to the FCC’s Covered List.”
Strengthening the Domestic Supply Chain
The NDAA also emphasizes bolstering the domestic and allied supply chain for critical drone technologies. Jeppson described the measure as “good news for everyone,” while AUVSI President and CEO Michael Robbins said the bill acknowledges threats posed by Chinese-manufactured drones and supports efforts to reduce dependencies on foreign-made technology.
Robbins outlined further investments in the U.S. supply chain and defense infrastructure, noting, “Funding for Drone Detection & Mitigation is increased by $336.442M across multiple budget lines… totaling more than $1.7B.” He also highlighted support for initiatives like DIU, AFWERX Prime, and the Replicator program, which aim to accelerate the integration of autonomous systems into defense operations.
DJI’s Advocacy and Concerns
DJI welcomed the exclusion of the Countering CCP Drones Act (CCCPD Act) from the final NDAA language. The proposed legislation would have removed DJI products from the U.S. market and potentially revoked existing FCC authorizations.
In its blog post, DJI expressed gratitude to the drone community for opposing the CCCPD Act, stating, “Your tireless and thoughtful efforts… had a significant impact.” However, the company raised concerns about the NDAA’s provisions, including the lack of a designated agency to conduct the risk assessment and the absence of due process. DJI called on Congress to:
- Designate a technically focused agency to ensure an evidence-based assessment.
- Grant DJI a fair right of reply to any findings.
Looking Ahead
The NDAA FY25 sets the stage for critical developments in 2025, with Congress expected to take additional actions on counter-drone authorities and domestic manufacturing incentives. As Robbins noted, “The future of defense will be driven by autonomous systems,” underscoring the importance of collaboration between government and industry.
For DJI, the next year will be pivotal as it continues to advocate for policies that prioritize technological merit over country of origin. The company pledged to keep stakeholders informed and engaged as new developments unfold.
With the NDAA awaiting final approval, the drone industry stands at a crossroads, balancing innovation, security, and international competition. As Jeppson aptly observed, “Looking forward to a very busy, very exciting 2025.”
Want DRONELIFE news delivered to your inbox every weekday? Sign up here.
Read more:
- FY 2025 NDAA Conference Text: What Happened with the “Countering CCP Drones Act”
- DJI Responds, Calls for Fair Assessment in NDAA Drone Legislation
- FY25 NDAA: A Temporary Reprieve for Chinese Drones or the Beginning of the End?
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.
Why do we have to hear about AUVSI’s biased view in every DroneLife article these days? Please drop the AUVSI have-beens and report the news as it is. AUVSI has done nothing but try to destroy the commercial and recreational drone industry.
As a small business owner with Part 107 and photography business these barriers/and or speed bumps continues to present peripheral challenges. My fear is that historically American Companies will put profit over quality, coupled with high cost.
What I don’t understand is we are putting all this emphasis on a Chinese made product, what about these products that dominate our market:
LG, Samsung, Harris Radio, IPhones, these are just a few examples.
The car market is another example……do we really investigate all the components.
There are more critical autonomous sensors, cameras and recording device on vehicles from 10 years ago, that do not exist on any commercial drone available today.
Yes, current drones are technically advanced flying machines but these DJI and Autel commercial drones are not spy drones, they don’t have that kind of tech.
I can walk through a crowded street and take all the pictures and video with my mobile device, from publically accessed venues and nobody really cares, it is also my 1st ammendment right to do so.
Now, say I do that same exact thing, but with a drone, at say 20 to 30 feet off the ground. Just moving down a path and filming everything the camera can see from it view point.
I would confronted immediatley, police would be called, and I would be questioned.
People fear what they do not understand. Then find like-minded people and let the fear mongering begin.
NJ is a good exam[pe. The media through gas on the fire and the authorities turned a blind eye for the most part.
The problem is with your cell phone bystanders “can visually see you” – the operator – and judge you, your body language, your mannerisms, etc. to logically deduct if you are using your cell phone appropriately (or not) given any chance meeting or yourself noticed by others. With drones, there is none of that and the fear automatically jumps to intent of invasion of privacy.
As an example, it’s known that unless the face of robotic humanoids APPEAR 100% human in the face that bystanders whom visually see such high technology **will not** trust it. This is the same challenge and problem drones have set against them from those not familiar within the industry.