It’s not fair to say that choosing battery, or power sources in general, was an easy task for UAV operators or fleet managers prior to recent regulatory announcements. There have always been key considerations that needed to be made before any final decision, including weight considerations, charge times, and decisions between swappable or fast-charging units, among other factors. 

Today, though, for operators within the United States there are additional considerations given regulations around federal compliance. Between NDAA compliance issues, which is relevant to anyone working for a government agency, receiving federal funds, operating near critical infrastructure, or others, as well as a recent FCC decision to add all foreign-made drones and critical components to its Covered List, the origins of a power system are now more important than ever.

The NDAA compliance question is not a new one for the commercial drone industry, but it has grown considerably more complex in recent years, and the FY 2026 NDAA, which was signed into law in December 2025, took that a bit further. For operators working within federal procurement frameworks, the restrictions reach deeper into the supply chain than some may realize. 

A drone assembled in the United States is not automatically compliant. Instead, what matters is the origin of its critical components and the corporate structure of the entities involved in their production. Batteries are squarely in scope. As Pillsbury Law noted, the FY 2026 NDAA introduces phased restrictions on Department of Defense procurement of advanced batteries linked to foreign entities of concern, layered on top of existing covered materials sourcing requirements under Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), with additional minerals now subject to sourcing restrictions from China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. For commercial operators, the immediate compliance pressure may not arrive through a direct contract, but rather through the agencies, contractors, and federally funded programs they support.

Meanwhile, the FCC’s addition of foreign-made critical components to the Covered List adds another layer of complication. When that decision was formally announced in December 2025, it took many in the industry by surprise given its breadth, mostly around the decision to make it cover all foreign-made drones and components rather than those from specific regions or companies. However, another eye-raising part of that decision was including batteries under the list of examples of critical components.

This was a particularly confusing inclusion within this announcement, as batteries (and motors, for that matter), traditionally do not fall under the FCC’s jurisdiction, which covers communication technologies like radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. Notably, batteries do not fall under that umbrella, so it was surprising to see it on this list. A few weeks after the initial announcement, the FCC did release some FAQs around the Covered List decision, and that included a mention of the battery issue. Although they did acknowledge that these typically do not fall under FCC jurisdiction, and still do not, but as Wilson Sonsini points out, these components could still be assessed as part of an analysis of whether a UAV meets the Buy American Standard that was part of a subsequent FCC carve-out.

The supply chain reality operators are now navigating is one in which compliant options exist, but the market has not yet caught up to the demand that these regulations are creating. Domestic battery manufacturers are responding, including a February 2026 collaboration between KULR Technology Group and Texas-based drone maker Hylio to develop and manufacture NDAA-compliant battery systems in Texas. This is just one recent example of how the regulatory environment is actively reshaping partnerships and production priorities. 

With that being said, the broader picture continues to show a domestic supply base that is scaling. As analysts at Seeking Alpha observed in February 2026, meaningful domestic competition in the compliant battery space is still years away from volume production for most manufacturers, which means cost premiums and limited options are likely to be the reality for the near term. It is also worth noting that the aforementioned FCC carve-outs expire on January 1, 2027, unless extended by the administration.

For operators trying to chart a course through all of this, DroneDeploy's compliance guide frames it well: this is a long-term procurement issue, not a short-term grounding order. Existing fleets are not affected, and current operations can continue. What operators need to be doing now is auditing their battery supply chains, understanding which compliance tier applies to their specific work, and building procurement strategies around platforms and components that meet either the threshold that applies to their work. Those planning future fleet expansions should treat compliant power systems as a baseline requirement.

There is also one more variable worth watching. DJI's February 2026 petition to the Ninth Circuit challenging the FCC's Covered List ruling could ultimately clarify how far the agency's authority actually extends over non-RF components like batteries, which, as discussed, remains a genuinely open question. The outcome of that case may reshape parts of this compliance picture before the January 2027 deadline even arrives. For now, though, operators are best served by planning as if the current framework holds, while keeping a close eye on how it evolves.