In a heated exchange over national security and agricultural technology, Chinese firm DJI Technologies has responded forcefully to allegations from US lawmakers about its agricultural spray drones. The controversy stems from a letter sent by 12 Republican members of Congress to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency director Jen Easterly. The letter arrived as the US House of Representatives passed the Countering CCP Drones Act (HR 2864), aimed at adding DJI’s equipment and services to the ‘covered list.’ This inclusion would restrict DJI from obtaining Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licenses for future drone models and could revoke existing authorizations.
DJI, the market leader in agricultural spraying drones in the US, has labeled these accusations as “baseless.” Adam Welsh, DJI’s head of global policy, emphasized that the Senate’s decision will be pivotal, as the bill must pass there to become law. The Countering CCP Drones Act has also been attached to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which passed in the House in June but must still be reconciled with the Senate version.
“For years, the US government has known that DJI presents unacceptable economic and national security risks but no one was willing to take the necessary steps to remove Communist Chinese spy drones from our skies. That changed today,” said Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, one of the lawmakers who signed the letter. The letter claims that the proliferation of Chinese-manufactured agriculture drones poses significant risks, alleging that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is leveraging its monopoly on the global drone supply to gain control over the US food supply.
The lawmakers argue that DJI’s ag drones could be manipulated for attacks within the US and that data collected by these drones could be weaponized by the CCP to gain detailed insights into the US agricultural sector. They also claim that as a Chinese company, DJI is obliged to hand over data to the Chinese government, which could disrupt US agricultural production.
In a detailed blog post, DJI refuted these claims, asserting that their market leadership is due to the reliability, innovation, and safety of their products, not unfair trade practices. The company argued that the definition of subsidies used by its critics could apply to virtually any company. DJI also highlighted that its agricultural drone solutions support sustainable farming and precision agriculture, helping farmers boost yields and reduce costs.
DJI emphasized its commitment to security, noting continuous investments in security audits by third-party experts and enhanced privacy controls. The company stated that its drones do not collect flight logs, photos, or videos by default, and operators must opt-in to share this data. For those concerned about security, DJI offers a Local Data Mode and advises switching mobile devices to ‘airplane mode’ for added peace of mind.
A DJI spokesperson expressed disappointment that public policy discussions are being influenced by political considerations rather than facts. The spokesperson noted that DJI drones are widely used by federal agencies, local law enforcement, and emergency response teams, and that legislation restricting the purchase of DJI drones based on their country of origin undermines American interests.
Distributors of DJI drones have also weighed in, arguing that fears of drones being commandeered for nefarious purposes or sending data back to China are exaggerated. Jeremy Schneiderman, CEO of Drone Nerds, and Bryan Sanders, president of HSE-UAV, both stressed the importance of creating cybersecurity standards that apply to all drones, regardless of their origin. Sanders criticized the current climate of fear-mongering, pointing out that similar information could be obtained from publicly available sources like Google Earth or the EPA website.
The unfolding debate highlights the complex intersection of technology, agriculture, and national security, with significant implications for US farmers and the broader agricultural industry. As the Senate prepares to review the legislation, stakeholders on all sides are closely watching the outcome.