High Stakes Debate at XPONENTIAL: How Security Policy Is Shaping the Future of Drone Innovation

At XPONENTIAL 2025, the annual gathering of more than 7,500 leaders and end users in the uncrewed systems industry, the topic of U.S. drone policy and national security took center stage. In a panel titled The High Stakes Debate: Security and the Future of Innovation, industry experts tackled how ongoing federal efforts to restrict Chinese drone technologies may shape the future of the drone ecosystem—and whether the U.S. is truly ready to meet its own expectations.

A Growing Focus on Security

Mike Walsh, partner at DLA Piper and an expert in national security trade law, opened with a broad view of trade and security. “We are obviously in a technology war with China,” Walsh said. He explained that current U.S. policy aims to protect domestic innovation and prevent adversaries from accessing high-tech systems. Tools like tariffs, export controls, and foreign investment incentives are being used to “China-proof” U.S. businesses.

However, Walsh noted that these tools come with complexity. Export control enforcement is increasing, and the Department of Commerce is focusing on major violations. “Companies that should have known better are facing fines in the hundreds of millions,” he said. He advised companies to develop internal compliance policies and prepare for worst-case scenarios.

The Ground-Level View: Uncertainty and Need

Panel moderator Brendan Schulman, VP of Policy at Boston Dynamics and former DJI executive, asked attendees whether they had already been forced to change the drones they use due to policy. Only a few hands went up—suggesting that the impact may still be emerging. Still, the panelists agreed the pressure is mounting.

Matt Sloane, Co-Founder and Chief Strategy Officer at SkyfireAI, emphasized that public safety agencies are caught in a bind. “There’s a real fear that they aren’t going to have the tools they need,” he said. Agencies relying on Chinese-made drones could find themselves unable to operate during emergencies. “We all want to use U.S. drones… but right now we’re in this awkward teenage phase,” Sloane said.

Sloane and others pointed out that U.S.-made alternatives are often not yet available at the same price point or with the same functionality. Without sufficient funding or support, U.S. public agencies and smaller commercial users are left in limbo.

Building a Resilient Supply Chain

Panelists from across sectors echoed the need to build robust, secure supply chains—but warned that doing so is not easy.

Joel Roberson, a partner at Holland & Knight LLP, advised that companies should now “build your supply chain by design,” with an eye toward both current regulations and potential future restrictions. He also noted that technologies like LiDAR are increasingly under scrutiny.

Matt Beckwith, VP of Policy at Guardian Agriculture, said that policy changes like NDAA Section 817 and Section 889 have sent signals to investors. “We’re starting to see that message resonate, and it’s beginning to pay off,” he said. Beckwith pointed to emerging supply chain partnerships with automotive manufacturers as a positive step forward.

Still, challenges remain. Todd Graetz, CEO of Aerolane, said that the U.S. needs more than money—it needs political will. “We need the capital and the leadership to go to U.S. drone manufacturers and say: ‘Go build. We’ll remove the red tape.’”

Innovation at Risk?

Matt Joyner, CRO at Ghost Robotics, pointed to deeper structural problems. “If we go to war tomorrow, we have a 30-day supply of batteries,” he said. “That’s scary as hell.” He argued that manufacturing infrastructure must be a national priority. “I don’t need the government to buy my product. But I need them to stand up the infrastructure for manufacturing.”

Graetz agreed. “We created this problem,” he said, referring to long-term reliance on Chinese components and production capacity.

Despite the risks, Joyner said his company had found investment through a Korean partner—reflecting both international interest and the growing demand in Asia for ground robotics. “We need a Sovereign Wealth Fund in the United States,” he said, calling for strategic, long-term investment.

The Path Forward

As the conversation concluded, panelists were asked: what single change could help ease the transition away from Chinese technology?

“Grants,” said Sloane. “We need money to buy alternatives.”

There was consensus that current U.S. policy needs to evolve beyond simple bans. Schulman, reflecting on his experience at DJI, noted that technical and policy-based solutions could provide targeted protections without harming innovation or public safety operations.

Roberson closed with a call for engagement. “From a policy perspective, the community needs to engage in the process. The federal government is looking at this from the perspective that you’re either with us or against us,” he said.

The debate highlighted the tension at the heart of drone policy in 2025: how to secure U.S. interests while ensuring innovation and critical services can still thrive. Until scalable, affordable, and fully functional U.S.-made alternatives are widely available, that balance may remain difficult to achieve.

Read more:

• FY25 NDAA: A Temporary Reprieve for Chinese Drones or the Beginning of the End?
• Missouri Bill Seeks to Limit Government Use of Chinese-Made Drones, Faces Resistance from Law Enforcement
• Michael Robbins at XPONENTIAL 2025: U.S. Drone Industry Must Lead “Uncrewed Arsenal of Democracy” to Secure National Security