The FCC has proposed prohibiting the importation and marketing of products from nine companies — Cogito, Fikaxo, Lyno Dynamics, Skyhigh Tech, Spatial Hover, SZ Knowact, WaveGo, Xtra, and XAG — citing an "unacceptable risk" to US national security (Engadget; FCC). The agency suspects these companies of selling re-shelled versions of DJI drones and cameras, circumventing restrictions imposed in December 2025.

That December action added all new foreign-made drones and components to the FCC's Covered List, prohibiting their import and sale in the United States. DJI was the company most prominently affected. The rule, however, applied only to new models of foreign-made drones — devices already authorized for sale remained on the market. The current proposal targets that gap, encompassing "certain previously authorized equipment" the FCC believes are re-shelled DJI products sold under different brand names (Engadget; FCC).

The FCC previously proposed $25,000 fines against these same nine companies for evading the agency's official inquiries into whether they were marketing products under the Covered List (Engadget). The current import-and-marketing ban proposal escalates that enforcement track.

This would be the FCC's first use of retroactive ban authority granted in October 2025, when the commission voted to give itself the power to ban devices from companies on the Covered List retroactively (Engadget; The Verge). Until now, that power existed on paper but had not been wielded against specific products.

The FCC is accepting public comments for 30 days and has asked for "specific evidence" regarding its conclusion that the nine named companies are selling re-shelled DJI drones and cameras (Engadget; FCC ECFS).

DJI told Engadget it was disappointed by the action and pushed back on the national security rationale. The company said concerns about its data security "have not been grounded in evidence and instead reflect protectionism, contrary to the principles of an open market" (Engadget).

The regulatory architecture here is worth tracing. The Covered List, maintained under the FCC's equipment authorization framework, designates communications equipment deemed to pose national security risks — and listing a company or product category effectively blocks it from the US market through the commission's control over import and marketing authorization. The December 2025 expansion to all new foreign-made drones broadened that mechanism significantly. The October 2025 retroactive-ban vote then gave the FCC the ability to reach back to previously authorized devices, closing the loophole that would otherwise let covered products continue selling under prior approvals. The current proposal applies that retroactive power for the first time.

The re-shelling allegation is the connective thread. If the FCC's suspicion holds — that the nine companies are taking DJI hardware, rebranding it, and marketing it as non-covered equipment — then the retroactive ban authority is precisely the tool designed to address that evasion pattern. The 30-day comment period requesting "specific evidence" suggests the commission is building a record, not merely signaling intent.

For technology professionals tracking the US-China technology decoupling, the drone sector has become one of the most aggressively regulated verticals. The December 2025 ban was broad; this proposal is deep, reaching into previously authorized inventory. Companies that import, distribute, or integrate drone hardware into enterprise workflows — inspection, agriculture, mapping, public safety — should treat the Covered List as a live, expanding constraint rather than a settled one. The retroactive dimension adds particular uncertainty: equipment that passed authorization yesterday may not be salable tomorrow.

DJI's response frames the conflict in terms the industry will recognize — security claims without public evidence versus protectionist outcomes. That framing has merit as a policy debate, but it does not change the operational reality for US buyers and integrators. The FCC has the authority, has used it for forward-looking restrictions, and is now testing its retroactive reach. The comment period and the evidence standard the FCC has set will determine how quickly this proposal moves toward final rule.