Report reveals vast impact if US blacklisting of DJI drones spreads (2024)

It will come as no surprise toDroneDJreaders that political efforts have been afoot – and gaining momentum – toblacklist dronesmade by global leaderDJIfor the threats they allegedly pose of leaking user data to the spying eyes of officials in China. A new report offers an indication of just how steep – and expensive – that legislative push to sideline those UAVs across the US promises to be.

Though offering only a partial view of how prevalentDJI dronesare in the fleets of US public service users (not to mention throngs of enterprise operators and private enthusiasts), anew articlebyForbesdoes provide an idea of the vast consequences and costs that existing and futureblacklists of company craft will invariably have.

Read:New US bill seeks far broader ban on DJI drone use

Citing data obtained via third-party Freedom of Information petitions, the publication documentsUAVs made by DJI– as well as its fellow China-based yet vastly less-stigmatized competitor Autel ­– making up two-thirds of craft operated by government agencies and police departments in three large eastern US states.

One of those – Florida –has already passed a lawreplicatingfederal blacklistsof DJI craft for use by certain public administrations. That ban subsequently forced state lawmakers to provide $25 million to police departments deprived of their DJI drones to procure new, more expensive, and often less effective options produced by domestic and foreign (just non-Chinese) manufacturers.

Other US states,including Arkansas, have followed Florida’s lead banning DJI UAVS for deployment by police and other public agencies. Still others like Alabama have similar legislation in the works. If Florida’s law provides any instruction, those blacklists will wind up costing taxpayers a lot of money, and leave public service users seriously hacked off about the aerial capabilities lost from them.

Read:Report of DJI ‘Chinese drone threat’ in DC skies should direct accusing finger at US legislators

Moreover, certain agencies covered by previousbans on DJI dronesapplicable to federal administrations like theDepartment of Defenseand Department of Commerce have relied on loopholes – or merely ignored interdictions ­– to continue deploying the craft as apparently irreplaceable.

Officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigations and Department of Homeland Security have confirmed ongoing deployment of theblacklisted droneas necessary to respond to identified threats to the public – those, unlike the data leak and other accusations leveled at DJI ­­, having been duly substantiated and documented.

Now the Forbes piece offers an idea of just how large a blacklisting of DJI drones would be on the state and local level. Information it obtained includes:

• Of “550 drones registered by government and police departments” in New Jersey of April this year, “over 440 were DJI and 65 were Autel.”

• Of the more than 3,000 registered UAVs in state fleets affected by Florida’s law, “over 1,500 were DJI and nearly 300 were Autel.”

• The 530 drones operated in New York state for official operation counted461 DJIand 29 Autel craft in their midst.

• Collectively, the two companies’ drones made up 68% of all public service UAVs on record in the three states audited.

• State police in Maryland, and the law enforcement department of Fredericksburg, VA – just 50 miles south of Blacklist Central, Washington, DC – both fly exclusively Chinese-made fleets dominated by DJI craft.

DJI has forcefully reiterated denials of accusations that its drones leak data back to Beijing that have been used to justify creation of or calls for blacklists. The company also rejects attendant claims it is partially owned by and has been an accomplice to activity by the Chinese government repressing human rights.

Read:Leaker suggests DJI Air 3 drone release slated for June or July

Despite those refutations – and the absence of evidence US and state lawmakers have produced supporting their claims – the spread of blacklisting continues slowly spreading across the US, no matter the reduced capabilities of affected agencies or the replacement costs passed on to taxpayers.