As a Utahn, I’ve been shaken by the assassination that happened just south of where I live, five minutes from where I attended college and I had family members in attendance. I was devastated to see the lack of security at the event, and it really made me wonder why more wasn’t done to secure the area ahead of the event? If security drones had been in use, would Charlie Kirk still be alive?
DJI is the world’s leading drone manufacturer and their drones are widely preferred by American first responders, local governments, drone hobbyists, photographers and film crews alike. A recent push of propaganda aimed to discredit DJI drones has stoked fear mongering and disinformation about DJI products that has instigated a push for executive action and legislation. And soon their drones may not even be available to purchase because of this government overreach.
America leads the world in innovation in tech for a reason, but a proposed U.S. ban on new DJI drone imports and sales could take effect by the end of 2025 if the required National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) security review of DJI doesn’t happen by the end of the year. While no ban is official yet, delays and seizures by U.S. Customs, along with ongoing Congressional efforts, are making DJI drones increasingly hard to find in the U.S.
In the current dynamic of the administration auditing federal agencies, it is astonishing that any resources are being spent on blocking free trade. Strapped for cash, public agencies are being pushed by California investors to swap dependable, affordable DJI drones for far more expensive U.S.-made models, often through sole-source deals or with funding from opaque foundations. Why are Silicon Valley companies dictating what equipment first responders can use?
Search-and-rescue crews, fire departments, and small police forces that once could purchase several DJI units for the cost of a single domestic drone are now priced out of vital equipment. The very communities cited in national-security rhetoric end up with fewer tools and higher bills, while venture firms backing inferior drone companies market their “American Dynamism” funds as patriotic investments and profit from the inflated valuations they manufactured.
Strapped for cash, public agencies are being pushed to swap dependable, affordable DJI drones for far more expensive U.S.-made model, often through sole-source deals or with funding from opaque foundations. Search-and-rescue crews, fire departments, and small police forces that once could purchase several DJI units for the cost of a single domestic drone are now priced out of vital equipment. The very communities cited in national-security rhetoric end up with fewer tools and higher bills, while venture firms backing these startups market their “American Dynamism” funds as patriotic investments and profit from the inflated valuations they helped engineer.
DJI is a privately held and controlled company based in China. In 2006, at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Frank Wang and two friends started DJI in their dorm. DJI remains privately held to this day. No government entity or its representatives sit on their board or have any role in management. Simply put- DJI is a threat to American competitors because their drones are better, and their lobbyists know that focusing their argument on manufactured cyber-security talking points will cause panic.
Americans, especially first responders, will soon not be allowed access to the drone of their choice because of government intervention on behalf of competitors to DJI. Lobbyists are driving this legislation that is an obvious example of cronyism. This proposal is little more than protectionism masquerading as national security, amounting to sweeping government control over what Americans can buy. Companies that domestically manufactured drones have lobbied the Department of Commerce to promote rules that will ban foreign made drones. Skydio (a domestic competitor of DJI) lobbyists even registered simply to push the Commerce Department to start an investigation of DJI and their efforts have proven successful. But if we truly believe in free markets, wouldn’t we want Skydio to spend their capital and resources on improving their drones, instead of manufacturing a crisis to bring down a competitor?
First responders have the most to lose with this overreach. DJI drones save lives because of their superior cameras, tracking capability and GPS navigation. It makes their jobs easier, forces them to be more efficient with tax payer resources and allows them to save lives, and faster. A sheriff in Kentucky stated “When it comes to crime scene or accident reconstruction, what typically can take more than an hour or two, a drone can reduce some aspects of the job to just minutes. “It’s a vast amount of situations that it can be used for to make our job more efficient and to protect citizens’ lives along with deputies,” Hardin County Sheriff John Ward said. It also has a 19-mile flight radius and a return-to-home feature. For instance, if Cook is operating the drone and gets disoriented, he can hit the return button and it comes back to him.
Cook’s real-world application of the genius behind the DJI tech showcases the lives that will be potentially lost if this legislation passes. Stoking fear unnecessarily is a game we no longer have to play. We can arm our first responders with the tools they need to protect the public. Rather than playing referee in the free market, Congress should tackle the cybersecurity risks that truly matter.
Britt Larsen is a former Capitol Hill and gubernatorial communications director who now owns her own consulting firm, Livlyhood, helping people and businesses craft and share effective messages to find more joy in their work.
