Cybersecurity Policy Report, Range of Views Offered on FCC’s Proposed Drone Import Ban, (Sep 2, 2026)

By Jeff Williams

Numerous parties have submitted conflicting perspectives to the FCC on a proposal to prohibit the continued importation and marketing of certain previously authorized foreign-produced uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS), UAS critical components, and communications and video surveillance equipment, with some saying the restrictions would be appropriate and other citing concerns that they would be overly broad and lead to various adverse impacts.

The proposal detailed by the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology in PS docket 26-184 would apply to UAS, UAS critical components, and communications and video surveillance equipment that in December were placed on the agency’s “covered list” of equipment and services deemed to pose an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security or the security and safety of U.S. persons (CPR, July 21).

Guangzhou Xaircraft Technology Co. Ltd. (XAG), one of the nine companies that would be subject to the FCC’s proposal, asked the Commission to remove it from the “scope of any final prohibition adopted in this proceeding.”

The public notice “does not identify any unique risk attributable to XAG or otherwise provide any basis for singling XAG out from the universe of foreign UAS and UAS critical components manufacturers who are not targeted by this Public Notice,” the company said. “XAG’s seemingly random inclusion in the Public Notice is an arbitrary and capricious agency action.”

Among other things, the company disputed that the proposed restrictions would not have substantial economic and supply chain impacts, arguing that the public notice “underestimates the effect on XAG as well as on small agricultural operators, drone service providers, and authorized dealers who depend on or have invested substantially in XAG systems.”

The Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) was among those that expressed support for the proposed prohibition.

“The Bureaus’ [sic] own record shows why,” AUVSI said. “Public reporting and the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau investigations cited in the Public Notice indicate that the equipment at issue consists of hardware clones, rebrands, and shell or proxy arrangements built specifically to route around prohibitions the Commission has already adopted.”

The Agricultural Drone Initiative (ADI) told the Commission that it “strongly supports” the proposal.

“[W]hen foreign adversaries dump nominally American agricultural UAS at heavily subsidized prices, it not only deceives American farmers and imperils their ability to source parts, it also takes money from American drone manufacturers,” ADI said.

Similar to other law enforcement interests, Sheriff Todd Glander of the Becker County (Minnesota) Sheriff’s Office expressed concerns about increased costs and public safety impacts if the FCC disallows the importation and marketing of certain UAS equipment and components.

Elevon Aerial AG, Exedy Drones, and Ceres AIR LLC each filed similar comments saying they supported the proposed prohibition on the importation and marketing of certain UAS that could be utilized for agricultural spraying.

Airstrike Ag LLC said it would “incur significant economic impact” if UAS products it sold were prohibited, adding that other dealers, users trying to obtain replacement parts, and use of the vehicles for agricultural purposes would also be adversely affected.

The company asked the FCC to, among other things, “preserve spare-parts availability” and “provide a realistic transition and sell-through period.”

Several parties identifying themselves as business owners or parties working in various capacities related to UAS sales, repair, or operation, as well as individual users, submitted comments highlighting concerns about the proposal, including concerns that overly broad rules could have unintended consequences, such as increasing costs, causing job loss, limiting access to replacement parts, and hindering agriculture-related operations.

News: FederalLegislation LitigationEnforcement DataSecurity