On Friday, June 14th, the United States House of Representatives passed the The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allocates $895 billion for military spending, passed by a vote of 217–199; and in it contained a provision that would ban the sale and use of the popular DJI drones made by a Chinese company, which is apparently to counteract potential surveillance concerns.
This same defense budget package also automates the Select Service System (SSS) for men aged 18-26 in the event a draft is declared. SEE: US Congress Passes Bill To Automatically Enroll Men Aged 18-26 In Military Draft
Buried within the roughly 1000-page bill is “Section 223 – Dismantlement of Chinese Drone Aircraft of [sic] to Identify the Origin of Components and Security Vulnerabilities.” Apparently it was originally called the “Countering CCP Drones Act,” Tom’s Hardware reported.
The current text of the amendments states:
(a) In General.–Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, acting through the
head of the Defense Technology Security Administration and in
coordination with the Director of the Defense Innovation Unit, shall–
(1) fully disassemble a drone aircraft made by the Chinese
technology company Da Jiang Innovations (DJI); and
(2) determine the origin of each component of such drone
aircraft.
(b) Report.–After completing the actions required under subsection
(a), the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report that
includes–
(1) a list of each component found in the drone, including
the origin of the component and manufacturer information;
(2) a description of any security vulnerabilities that were
identified in the course of disassembling the drone.
(c) Form.–The report required under subsection (b) shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
DJI is blacklisted again later in the bill in “Section 1722 – Analysis of Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems Entities.” The section states:
(a) In General.–Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall conduct an analysis to determine if any unmanned aircraft systems entity, or any subsidiary, parent, affiliate, or successor of such an entity, should be identified as a Chinese military company or a military-civil fusion contributor and included on the list maintained by the Department of Defense in accordance with section 1260H(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (10 U.S.C. 113 note). (b) Addition of Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems Entities Technologies to Covered List.– (1) In general.–Section 2(c) of the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (47 U.S.C. 1601(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: “(5) The communications equipment or service being– ``(A) telecommunications or video surveillance equipment produced by Shenzhen Da-Jiang Innovations Sciences and Technologies Company Limited (commonly known as `DJI Technologies’) (or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof); or “(B) telecommunications or video surveillance services, including software, provided by an entity described in subparagraph (A) or using equipment described in such subparagraph.”. (2) Conforming amendments.–Section 2 of the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (47 U.S.C. 1601) is amended by striking “paragraphs (1) through (4)” each place it appears and inserting “paragraphs (1) through (5)”. (c) Definitions.–In this section: (1) The term “unmanned aircraft system” has the meaning given such term in section 44801 of title 49, United States Code. (2) The term “unmanned aircraft systems entity” means an entity that manufactures or assembles an unmanned aircraft system.
Elise Stefanik (R-NY) who sponsors the anti-DJI legislation, said in a comment: “DJI presents an unacceptable national security risk, and it is past time that drones made by Communist China are removed from America.”
Tom’s Hardware, noted, however, ‘Of course, this unacceptable risk has not seemed to faze the U.S. military and police complex, which generally favors use of the drones in law enforcement. DJI products have also been used in the Russian war against Ukraine, a use-case U.S. lawmakers fear though DJI has denounced all military use of its drones.’
The tech outlet added: ‘Drone maker DJI is based in China and controls over 70% of the world’s drone market share, a combination that threatens U.S. lawmakers. As we first reported in April, 6% of DJI stock lies in the hands of Chinese state-owned businesses, which has led to fears of Chinese government backdoors, national security risks, and other fears of Chinese surveillance using the company’s drones. And of course, there lies the more real concern for U.S. lawmakers that DJI’s success would continue to strengthen the Chinese economy.’
Prior to the bill’s passage, Drone DJ cited remarks by Travis Waibel, CEO and founder of Advexure – one of the largest drone dealers and integrators in the country – who argues this has zero to do with safety but constraining competition. He wrote in a statement on LinkedIn:
H.R. 2864 isn’t about security; it’s about stifling drone competition. It’s time we, as an industry, confront the real motivations behind these policies and advocate for innovation and a free market over politics and protectionism.
I encourage you to have a read and make your voices heard.
If you’re unsure how to voice your opinions, please feel free to reach out—happy to help! Our lawmakers appreciate hearing firsthand accounts of how drones are being used across all industry sectors.
Attached with his statement is a formal 7-page that dives deeper into why this legislation is not wise and is largely unfounded and unwarranted. Drone DJ summarized his opinions, writing:
Waibel says that public safety officials, many of whom cannot publicly oppose the legislation due to their positions, have expressed serious concerns to him in private. One police officer with over 15 years of experience, who is also a founding member of his department’s drone team, has lamented that the legislation would take away life-saving equipment, jeopardizing public safety for political gain.
The officer notes that DJI products are far superior to any domestic alternatives, and the supposed security concerns have been exaggerated. […] The problem is that despite significant efforts, US-made drones still lag behind their Chinese counterparts in technology, reliability, and affordability.
Waibel emphasizes that the market operates on free trade principles, where competition drives innovation. Forcing public safety agencies to use inferior and more expensive domestic products would hinder their ability to perform effectively.
The security concerns cited by proponents of the bill are largely unfounded, Waibel says. DJI drones have had local data and offline modes for years, allowing them to operate without internet connectivity. Moreover, lawmakers themselves continue to use various Chinese-made technologies without issue. The focus on DJI drones seems more politically motivated than based on genuine security risks.
Waibel argues that if data security were a genuine concern, specific practices and standards would be discussed. Instead, the debate lacks these crucial elements, revealing the true motive behind the legislation: political gain and market manipulation.
Waibel is also quick to add that the push for this legislation can be traced back to companies like Skydio and BRINC as well as associations like AUVSI, which have invested heavily in lobbying efforts to sway policy in their favor. These entities seek to stifle competition rather than innovate and win based on product merit. This political maneuvering endangers lives by depriving public safety agencies of the best tools available.
Waibel points out the hypocrisy of these actions, noting that even Blue sUAS, Green UAS, and NDAA-compliant drone platforms contain Chinese-made components. The initial solution was designed for the Department of Defense, not public safety operators. The unique needs of public safety agencies are being overlooked in favor of protectionist policies that do not serve the public interest.
AUTHOR COMMENTARY
Exactly, this has nothing to do with privacy and security concerns: it’s all about leveling the playing field. This is the same reason why the Trump and Biden administrations are slapping tariffs and restrictions on them and a number of products, such as their EVs. It’s why Treasurer Janet Yellen literally went to China not that long ago and told the Chinese leaders that they need to stop “over-producing” and accused them of “over capacity.” I mean, you can’t make this stuff up.
It’s the same motivation by both parties and both Biden and Trump administrations to attempt to ban Chinese-owned TikTok; which, in the never-ending clown show and political drama, Trump recently started a TikTok account of his own to reach as many young voters as he can, vowing that he will not ban TikTok unlike Joe Biden. I guess we’re supposed to forget that he tried to ban TikTok via executive order in 2020…
But getting back to the drones – I guess we’re supposed to believe that it’s terrible if China spies on us, but when the American big brother does it then it’s okay. Amerika! I wonder what those silly Chinese are going to do with themselves when they discover Google Earth; but those Orientals must still be in the Stone Age, too primitive to understand American-branded “freedom and democracy” (sarcasm).
We’ve already covered that both Biden and Trump administrations have made it VERY clear in no uncertain terms that they are determined and want to start a new Cold War with China, ramp-up military production, tariff them, and try to topple their government. It won’t work and it will ultimately result in total failure for the U.S…. SEE: Cold War 2.0: Biden And Trump Are Both Determined To Fight A New Cold War With China, Officials Calling For ‘Cold Warriors’ And Militarily Toppling China
Proverbs 29:2 When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.
[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:7-10).
The WinePress needs your support! If God has laid it on your heart to want to contribute, please prayerfully consider donating to this ministry. If you cannot gift a monetary donation, then please donate your fervent prayers to keep this ministry going! Thank you and may God bless you.
Pray without ceasing ….
Yet Chinese spy balloons can fly at will over the entire United States, and this is okay. It is hypocrisy, but for our politicians who follow their globalist/Illuminati masters, it is par for the course.