The FCC has proposed banning the import and sale 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 believes these companies are selling rebranded versions of DJI drones and cameras, getting around restrictions put in place in December 2025.

That December rule added all new foreign-made drones and their components to the FCC's Covered List, which is a register of communications equipment the agency considers a national security risk. Being on the list effectively blocks a product from the US market, because the FCC controls which devices can be imported and sold. DJI, the Chinese drone giant, was the most prominent company affected. The December rule applied only to new models, though — devices already authorized for sale stayed on shelves. The current proposal targets that gap, covering previously authorized equipment the FCC believes is actually DJI hardware resold under different brand names (Engadget; FCC).

The FCC had previously proposed $25,000 fines against the same nine companies for ignoring the agency's inquiries about whether they were selling Covered List products (Engadget). This new proposal escalates that enforcement effort.

This would be the first time the FCC uses a retroactive ban authority it granted itself in October 2025, when the commission voted to allow itself to ban devices from Covered List companies even if those devices had already been approved (Engadget; The Verge). Until now, that power existed on paper but had not been used against specific products.

The FCC is accepting public comments for 30 days and has asked for "specific evidence" about its conclusion that the nine companies are selling rebranded DJI products (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. 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 rebranding allegation ties it all together. If the FCC's suspicion holds — that the nine companies are taking DJI hardware, slapping new brand names on it, and selling it as non-covered equipment — then the retroactive ban authority is exactly the tool designed to address that kind of evasion. The 30-day comment period requesting "specific evidence" suggests the commission is building a formal record, not merely signaling intent.

The broader context here matters for anyone in the drone industry. The drone sector has become one of the most heavily regulated areas in the broader US-China technology decoupling. The December 2025 ban was broad; this proposal goes deeper, reaching into previously authorized inventory. Companies that import, distribute, or build drone hardware into enterprise workflows — inspection, agriculture, mapping, public safety — should treat the Covered List as a live, expanding constraint rather than something settled. The retroactive dimension adds real 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 a final rule.