Cybersecurity Policy Report, Stakeholders Highlight Differences on DJI Drone Security Assessment, (Sep 2, 2026)

By Jeff Williams

While the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) continues to argue in favor of the FCC keeping SZ DJI Technology Co. Ltd.’s communications and video surveillance equipment and services on the Commission’s “covered list” of equipment and services deemed to be unacceptable risks to the national security of the U.S., DJI and some supporters continue to push the agency to reconsider the action.

The FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau announced the addition of foreign-made uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS), or drones, and UAS critical components, as well as all communications and video surveillance equipment and services produced by DJI, to the covered list late last year in a public notice in WC docket 18-89, ET docket 21-323, and EA docket 21-233 (CPR, Jan. 5). DJI submitted a petition for reconsideration of that action in January and later met with FCC staff to discuss a security assessment report conducted by OnDefend of two of the company’s drone systems and their controllers and applications.

In a filing in response to a request for comment on the OnDefend report, DJI faulted national security agencies for not testing its unmanned aerial vehicle products before determining that they should be placed on the covered list.

“Had they done so—or had they responded to DJI’s repeated efforts to provide information—they would have seen what the OnDefend Security Assessment now demonstrates: DJI’s products are highly secure. Instead, the agencies chose not to engage with DJI, denying it the opportunity to be heard, which basic due process demands,” DJI said.

The OnDefend analysis was “unequivocal” that there were “zero critical, zero high, and zero medium-risk vulnerabilities in the tested products,” the company argued. “These results demonstrate that the Commission was wrong to place DJI on the Covered List.”

DJI argued that Congress “required ‘an appropriate national security agency’ to evaluate DJI’s products. That never happened. Instead, the determination rested on an unspecified ‘interagency process’ that did not even identify the agencies involved. DJI was given no opportunity to present evidence—like the OnDefend Security Assessment—even though it sought to engage on multiple occasions.”

The Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) said the OnDefend assessment did not change the group’s opposition to the DJI petition.

While the FCC should not “disregard it without engaging it,” the FCC should evaluate the OnDefend assessment and “conclude, on the merits, that it does not meet the threshold that Section 1.429 of the Commission’s rules sets and does not disturb the statutory basis for the designation,” AUVSI said.

DJI’s ex parte filing “asks the Commission to weigh a commercial security assessment against a determination that Congress assigned to agencies with classified collection, counterintelligence, and supply-chain analytic capabilities the Commission does not have and was not given,” AUVSI said.

Several commenters identifying themselves as individuals or businesses that use drones also filed comments expressing varying levels of support for DJI, with some urging the FCC to reconsider restricting DJI products and others urging further consideration.

“The OnDefend assessment does not answer every question concerning DJI, nor should it be interpreted as doing so,” DroneXperts, a division of Collins Asset Management Corp., said in a filing. “It does, however, provide significant technical evidence concerning the specific systems examined, and that evidence should be meaningfully considered.”

News: FederalLegislation LitigationEnforcement DataSecurity