No CCCPDA language in the 2025 NDAA!!!

[Vic Moss]

NDAA 2025 Drone Provisions: Security Evaluation Could Lead To Automatic Ban Of Chinese Drones

The recently released National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2025 includes provisions that could significantly impact the U.S. drone

dronexl.co

Yep, Haye and I talked about this this morning.

I'm okay with this issue.

Here is what I told Haye:
"We saw that section Saturday night. It’s not ideal, but it’s not overly concerning. For that to happen, whatever national security agency that is assigned to must ignore the requirement, and let it just happen automatically. At this point in the game, we are organized enough to bring enough pressure on that agency to get the job done. And we have enough elected officials who don’t believe what Congress is trying to do on our side that we could very likely get Congressional pressure applied as well.

A lot of stuff still needs to be watched (like both CCCPDA bills in the Senate), so we’re not done, but as written, the FY 2025 NDAA isn’t a huge issue for us. I’ll be watching the meeting this afternoon."

So this isn't a major concern for us, and it shouldn't be for the industry either. But we do (& will) need to watch it.

 

[Vic Moss]

The countering drones act is not in the bill,but the other stuff in there in regards to security assessments done within a years time frame does not sound good at all.To me anyway it appears they are still trying to find other methods to ban DJI and will not stop until it happens.I call it sort of a moral victory for now until a ban eventually ends up happening.

As mentioned before, there are sections that warrant careful monitoring, both 1079 and 162. But overall this isn't a bad thing, or anything overly concerning.

As far as the ban "eventually ends up happening", that's too pessimistic. We need to be vigilant, but not paranoid.

 

[DJI-RP]

Hi gang,
I just read this in the news feed here in Aus, … thought you might be interested.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/...w-products-us-under-proposed-bill-2024-12-09/

 

[Vic Moss]

Hi gang,
I just read this in the news feed here in Aus, … thought you might be interested.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/...w-products-us-under-proposed-bill-2024-12-09/

This is more fear mongering. The only way this would affect DJI is if the agency in Section 1709 ignores what they're told to do. And we have enough people watching to endure that is very unlikely. z

Not worried about that at all.

 

[DJI-RP]

Thanks Vic, … i just read it and thought that it might be an advancement on things over there.

 

[Kiwicbrthou]

Good news for you guys over there.

 

[gogorokokoko]

DJI fires back at proposed US ban on Chinese drones

DJI has responded to the proposed US market ban. In a statement to DroneDJ, the drone maker has raised the demand for fair security audits.

dronedj.com

 

[eljimb0]

Thank you for your work!

 

[Vic Moss]

Next year at this same very time when the next 2026 NDAA bill is drafted ,the CCD drones act measure will be in it and passed,regardless of audits being done and findings ,good or bad done on DJI ans Autel.So I am not being pessimistic,it is just reality in what will happen next year.Of course I do not want any of this as i have a few drones myself and fly for a hobby.in the end Stefanik will make sure this ban somehow goes through.So right now I say a DJI ban will happen in 1 year from when the NDAA bill is voted on and passed.

Where is your proof? Stefanik will NOT be in the House next year. And if nothing else, this entire issue has brought this industry together.

I was on a call with someone in D.C. just a few minutes ago. And he heard directly from a Senate leader's office that the reason there was no true CCCPDA language in the FY2025 NDAA is because end users across the nation reached out to their elected officials and told them what would happen.

No, while nothing is a guarantee in D.C., your pessimism (it is far from anything even remotely related to reality) is incredibly unwarranted. We don't need doom and gloom attitudes masquerading as fact.

What we need, and what we have, is a unified voice that logically looks at the issue, reads the room, finds the supporters, and engages them in reality based dialogue.

No, you are offbase and too negative.

 

[TonyPHX]

The drone community, industry, and hobby have no greater friend than Vic. Suggest we take the win as Vic said above and stay positive.

 

[BlueHeeler]

All Good, Happy for all of us, but there will be a disgruntled Politician who will come back later to re-introduce the same Bill in another year, they always do,

 

[Vic Moss]

The drone community, industry, and hobby have no greater friend than Vic. Suggest we take the win as Vic said above and stay positive.

Thanks, but I can't take all the credit. There are a lot of folks behind the scenes as well!

 

[Vic Moss]

All Good, Happy for all of us, but there will be a disgruntled Politician who will come back later to re-introduce the same Bill in another year, they always do,

Which is why we aren't stopping with the pressure. Lot's a work still to do, but this is a major battle.

 

[Wreckhunter]

Where is your proof? Stefanik will NOT be in the House next year. And if nothing else, this entire issue has brought this industry together.

I was on a call with someone in D.C. just a few minutes ago. And he heard directly from a Senate leader's office that the reason there was no true CCCPDA language in the FY2025 NDAA is because end users across the nation reached out to their elected officials and told them what would happen.

No, while nothing is a guarantee in D.C., your pessimism (it is far from anything even remotely related to reality) is incredibly unwarranted. We don't need doom and gloom attitudes masquerading as fact.

What we need, and what we have, is a unified voice that logically looks at the issue, reads the room, finds the supporters, and engages them in reality based dialogue.

No, you are offbase and too negative.

All Good, Happy for all of us, but there will be a disgruntled Politician who will come back later to re-introduce the same Bill in another year, they always do,

Yes and this is exactly what is going to happen in a year.But this time it could very well get passed

 

[Vic Moss]

Yes and this is exactly what is going to happen in a year.But this time it could very well get passed

Go spread your doom and gloom somewhere else. I don't want it in my thread.

 

[Etbrown4]

This has been posted by gogorokokoko as a link, so I thought laying out the text might help. This describes the 12 month review outlined in the House version of the NDAA section 1709, and if adopted, the DJI and Autel products will specifically evaluated.

If the not yet named US security agency determines there is an unacceptable threat, some or all of these products could be prohibited from using FCC-regulated bandwidth, effectively barring their operation within U.S.... Obviously we all hope that none will be found to pose any threat.

Understanding Section 1709​

Key Provisions and Requirements​

Section 1709 mandates that within one year of the NDAA’s enactment, a designated national security agency must determine whether certain communications and surveillance equipment pose an “unacceptable risk” to U.S. national security or the safety of American citizens. The equipment subject to evaluation includes:

• Products from DJI Technologies and Autel Robotics.
• Equipment or services provided by any subsidiaries, affiliates, or partners of these companies.
• Entities engaged in joint ventures, licensing, or technology-sharing agreements with these companies.

If the agency identifies a security risk, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must add the equipment and services to its Covered List within 30 days. Once listed, these products would be prohibited from using FCC-regulated bandwidth, effectively barring their operation within U.S. communications networks.

 

[Vic Moss]

This has been posted by gogorokokoko as a link, so I thought laying out the text might help. This describes the 12 month review outlined in the House version of the NDAA section 1709, and if adopted, the DJI and Autel products will specifically evaluated.

If the not yet named US security agency determines there is an unacceptable threat, some or all of these products could be prohibited from using FCC-regulated bandwidth, effectively barring their operation within U.S.... Obviously we all hope that none will be found to pose any threat.

Understanding Section 1709​

Key Provisions and Requirements​

Section 1709 mandates that within one year of the NDAA’s enactment, a designated national security agency must determine whether certain communications and surveillance equipment pose an “unacceptable risk” to U.S. national security or the safety of American citizens. The equipment subject to evaluation includes:

• Products from DJI Technologies and Autel Robotics.
• Equipment or services provided by any subsidiaries, affiliates, or partners of these companies.
• Entities engaged in joint ventures, licensing, or technology-sharing agreements with these companies.

If the agency identifies a security risk, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must add the equipment and services to its Covered List within 30 days. Once listed, these products would be prohibited from using FCC-regulated bandwidth, effectively barring their operation within U.S. communications networks.

Yes, this is actually a good thing. It will determine once and for all if this is truly an issue. And if it's found not to be a security issue (which I'm fairly certain that's what they will find) then they have to drop all of this nonsense.

And if they try and wait the 12 months for the automatic inclusion to be triggered, we now have a strong enough voice to pressure whichever agency is supposed to do that testing. And that agency doesn't listen to us, we have identified enough of our supporters in Congress to enlist them in applying Congressional pressure.

Is this troublesome? Not really. We just can't let our guard down yet.

 

[Etbrown4]

First, let's hope this is enacted by the Senate and signed by the president without alteration.

Then it seems the key will be what this security agency defines as a risk, and if the staff at this agency acts in good faith, with no hidden agenda.

So yes, if this likely framework is adopted this should work out to our benefit.

As Vic points out it will require our vigilance over the next year to insure the process is both honest and transparent.

 

[Vic Moss]

The House passed with the new language (sans any CCCPDA language) this evening. It's up to The Senate now.

 

[Vic Moss]

Latest update.

I heard from the DJI lobbyists yesterday that NDAA should be passed in the Senate next Tuesday or Wednesday. Maybe Thursday.

The House did pass the very bill unchanged from the one the Senate already sent them. It makes no sense for the Senate to vote no in it now. Two reasons.

First, they'll look foolish voting no on something they gave The House (not that they've never looked foolish before ).

Second, the last two pieces of major legislation between them and Christmas recess is the NDAA and the CR (Continuing Resolution to keep the gov't afloat). If they blow up the NDAA with a no vote, they will be forced to deal with another NDAA process before they can go home.

So I think we're in good shape. I'll post more next week as soon as there is movement in the Senate.