Last week, as the industry came together for Commercial UAV Expo 2026, there was one topic that dominated conversation: The crackdown on foreign-made drones and components in the U.S. This won’t come as a surprise to anyone who has been following this industry even moderately over the last nine months, as it has been arguably the central issue for the sector since the original FCC ruling adding foreign-made drones and components to its Covered List in December of 2025. Although almost everyone in the industry expected some sort of ruling focused on China or DJI specifically, the breadth of that rule sent shockwaves through the industry, though subsequent exceptions cooled at least some of that sentiment.

That is, until a more recent FCC decision that came down earlier this summer on what it termed “military-grade” drones and sensors. One of the most important aspects of the original 2025 decision – and one that got misinterpreted quite a bit when the decision was first announced – was that nothing would change for drones and components that had already been approved. If a DJI drone was already on the market, for example, it wouldn’t be immediately taken off the shelf. 

The more recent announcement could change that, with the FCC weighing a prohibition on the import, marketing, and sale of drones it considers “military-grade.” This includes thermal imaging drones, lidar-equipped drones, docking stations, and some spray drones, among other categories. For anyone in the commercial industry, it likely stands out immediately that a lot of these descriptions fit the equipment they use every day for non-defense-related workflows. For now, this is just a proposal; public comments closed last Wednesday, September 2. 

After the comments closed, Pilot Institute analyzed nearly 4,000 comments with readable text, and 98.6 percent of responses opposed the rule. Perhaps even more strikingly, only 16 comments were deemed supportive of the proposal.

In its analysis of the public comments, which is available for free here, Pilot Institute broke down the responses both overall and across five clusters of questions posed by the Public Notice. As they note, most respondents answered only the questions relevant to their operations rather than each one. That said, overall, about three-quarters of respondents oppose the prohibition outright, with about 20 percent more backing the broad goals around national security but opposing the scope of this particular rule. Perhaps the most striking finding is that 99.4 percent of responses called the FCC’s definition of “military-grade UAS” overbroad.

The analysis also broke down who responded to the proposal overall, as well as how these individual groups responded to the Public Notice. For example, the two groups that led the way in responses were “individual remote pilots” and “commercial drone services,” with “public safety agencies” as a clear third. In each group, 75 to 81 percent of respondents outright opposed the prohibition, while 18 to 25 percent backed the overall goal but rejected the scope.

The entire analysis is worth reviewing, with more information on how the respondents as a whole feel, as well as individual comments. It’s worth noting, of course, that this is not necessarily a poll of the entire industry, but rather an analysis of how those who took the time to respond to the Public Notice answered the questions at hand. 

With the commenting period closed, the decision is now in the hands of the FCC on how to move forward, a decision that the entire industry will be watching extremely closely.