Another article about the ban...

[Paul Harvey]

This is a screen grab of an article I read about the DJI ban. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I got it or who authored it, so I have no source :/

 

[msinger]

It looks like a generic summary of the past year's events generated by AI.

 

[Occams Razor]

This is a screen grab of an article I read about the DJI ban. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I got it or who authored it, so I have no source :/

That is an old article. The NDAA Bill was already signed into law at the end of 2024.

 

[DisasterPastor]

That is an old article. The NDAA Bill was already signed into law at the end of 2024.

That would pre-date the current administration I believe I said sarcastically!!

 

[4 inch pistons]

No. This is new and hitting the press this week.

 

[Riptide]

No. This is new and hitting the press this week.

The 2025 NDAA was signed in Dec 2024. Why would news about a bill signed a year ago be hitting the press this week?

 

[msinger]

Why would news about a bill signed a year ago be hitting the press this week?

Well, because that's what AI is spoon feeding you this week

 

[4 inch pistons]

I can’t say for sure but some may have agreed to the bill because of the audit.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Riptide]

I can’t say for sure but some may have agreed to the bill because of the audit.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Although it sounds similar, what is being discussed in this video (actual source linked below) has to do with the 2026 NDAA while the OP’s screenshot is about the bill last year that required the audit. You are right that there is new news, but that’s not OP’s screenshot. The house version of the 2026 NDAA expands on the ban we are already facing. I fed both into Gemini and asked it to compare what was new:

The House version of the Fiscal Year 2026 NDAA (H.R. 3838) significantly expands and tightens the national security review mandated in the FY 2025 NDAA. While the FY 2025 law (Section 1709) already set the "review and potential ban" framework, the new bill addresses perceived loopholes and extends the ban's reach.


Here is a comparison of what the new bill adds or changes:


1. Expands Scope to Include Software


• FY 2025 Mandate: Focused on "communications and video surveillance equipment." This left ambiguity about whether the ban applied to the physical drone hardware or the underlying software.


• FY 2026 Change: Explicitly adds "integrated software" associated with unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to the review. This closes a loophole where a company might claim their hardware is safe even if the software (which processes the data) remains vulnerable or foreign-controlled.


2. Targets Specific Spectrum Equipment


• FY 2025 Mandate: Targeted "equipment" generally without specifying frequency bands.


• FY 2026 Change: Specifically targets equipment operating in the 5030–5091 MHz spectrum band. This is a critical frequency often used for drone command and control, ensuring that even components used to fly the drones (controllers, transmitters) are covered, not just the camera or data transmission units.


3. Explicitly Names "Unmanned Aircraft Systems"


• FY 2025 Mandate: Used broader language about communications equipment produced by DJI/Autel.


• FY 2026 Change: Explicitly names "Unmanned Aircraft Systems" (UAS) in the statutory language. This removes any legal wiggle room to argue that a "drone" is not "communications equipment" in certain contexts.


4. Creates a "Back-to-Back" Review Timeline


• FY 2025 Mandate: Requires a determination by late 2025 (one year after enactment). If no determination is made, the ban is automatic.


• FY 2026 Change: Sets up a second, parallel review period that would run through late 2026. This ensures that if the first review is delayed, challenged, or inconclusive on technicalities, the second stricter review (covering software and spectrum) will catch the companies the following year.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/26/chinese-drones-defense-bill-fight-00669415

 

[moldorf]

Although it sounds similar, what is being discussed in this video (actual source linked below) has to do with the 2026 NDAA while the OP’s screenshot is about the bill last year that required the audit. You are right that there is new news, but that’s not OP’s screenshot. The house version of the 2026 NDAA expands on the ban we are already facing. I fed both into Gemini and asked it to compare what was new:

The House version of the Fiscal Year 2026 NDAA (H.R. 3838) significantly expands and tightens the national security review mandated in the FY 2025 NDAA. While the FY 2025 law (Section 1709) already set the "review and potential ban" framework, the new bill addresses perceived loopholes and extends the ban's reach.


Here is a comparison of what the new bill adds or changes:


1. Expands Scope to Include Software


• FY 2025 Mandate: Focused on "communications and video surveillance equipment." This left ambiguity about whether the ban applied to the physical drone hardware or the underlying software.


• FY 2026 Change: Explicitly adds "integrated software" associated with unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to the review. This closes a loophole where a company might claim their hardware is safe even if the software (which processes the data) remains vulnerable or foreign-controlled.


2. Targets Specific Spectrum Equipment


• FY 2025 Mandate: Targeted "equipment" generally without specifying frequency bands.


• FY 2026 Change: Specifically targets equipment operating in the 5030–5091 MHz spectrum band. This is a critical frequency often used for drone command and control, ensuring that even components used to fly the drones (controllers, transmitters) are covered, not just the camera or data transmission units.


3. Explicitly Names "Unmanned Aircraft Systems"


• FY 2025 Mandate: Used broader language about communications equipment produced by DJI/Autel.


• FY 2026 Change: Explicitly names "Unmanned Aircraft Systems" (UAS) in the statutory language. This removes any legal wiggle room to argue that a "drone" is not "communications equipment" in certain contexts.


4. Creates a "Back-to-Back" Review Timeline


• FY 2025 Mandate: Requires a determination by late 2025 (one year after enactment). If no determination is made, the ban is automatic.


• FY 2026 Change: Sets up a second, parallel review period that would run through late 2026. This ensures that if the first review is delayed, challenged, or inconclusive on technicalities, the second stricter review (covering software and spectrum) will catch the companies the following year.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/26/chinese-drones-defense-bill-fight-00669415

my head spinning...

so does this mean DJI's fly app will be illegal? Using it a violation? If so, how will this be enforced?

 

[Riptide]

my head spinning...

so does this mean DJI's fly app will be illegal? Using it a violation? If so, how will this be enforced?

No clue, but the government definitely isn't going to stop me from using software I already have.

 

[mavic3usa]

Let's just keep our fingers crossed that a delay is granted similar to what happened with TikTok. The excuse will be they need more time to look at this, an audit was supposed to be schedule but that never happened, we need more time. The government has more leverage when a ban is pending rather than when it's finalized so I can see where it would make sense to put the move to add DJI to the covered list on HOLD.

 

[wco81]

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/26/chinese-drones-defense-bill-fight-00669415

Article identifies Elise Stefanik and Rick Scott as the main proponents of banning DJI.

They also have aspirations for higher office so remember them.