The public comment window has officially closed on one of the most consequential regulatory proposals facing the U.S. drone industry to date.
PS Docket No. 26-189 (Public Notice DA 26-758), the Federal Communications Commission’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) and Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) proposes to prohibit the continued importation and marketing of previously authorized foreign-produced “military-grade” uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) and critical components.
According to the FCC, the goal of such a ban would be to “safeguard national security” by eliminating certain types of hardware from flying in American skies. But since asking for feedback, the docket has been inundated with nearly 3000 public comments from Americans representing all aspects of the drone ecosystem, ranging from photography small businesses to drone light show companies to major hardware manufacturers like DJI.
The overarching theme of all the comments? The FCC’s definitions are dangerously broad, economically destructive and legally flawed. Here’s a more detailed breakdown of some of the common themes, including highlights from some of those comments:
Small media & service providers fear threat of commercial survival
For small business owners who rely on off-the-shelf commercial drones, the FCC’s proposed definition of “military-grade” capability feels drastically overbroad. After all, it includes drones that have common features like thermal imaging, LiDAR and docking stations.
Anthony LaRosa, operator of Aerial Vision Chicago LLC, submitted comments highlighting how the proposal confuses ordinary, high-value commercial tech with warfare technology:
“The proposed definition of military-grade can reach technology that also has ordinary civilian uses, including thermal imaging, LiDAR, docking stations, agricultural dispensing, and coordinated systems,” he wrote in his public comment. “The final rule should distinguish products by demonstrated risk, design, and actual intended use rather than treating a commercially useful capability as proof of military purpose.”
LaRosa also emphasized that while the FCC promises existing equipment can still be operated, the economic reality of maintaining an ecosystem without replacement parts will still likely crush small operators.
“Small operators plan around an equipment ecosystem that includes replacement aircraft, compatible components, batteries, repairs, and manufacturer support,” he wrote. “Uncertainty about that ecosystem affects investment decisions now and could strand otherwise serviceable equipment later…weakening American businesses before competitive and affordable domestic alternatives exist will not make the country stronger.”
Drone light show operators impress that “airborne pixels” are not tactical military swarms
Perhaps no sector is pushing back harder against the proposal than the drone entertainment industry. Under Category (7) of the Public Notice, the FCC proposed classifying swarming UAS to include “UAS purpose-built to perform flights in coordinated and synchronized formations, including applications such as multi-UAS light shows.”
Light show operators across the country expressed shock at their entertainment platforms being labeled “military-grade.”
James Vautin, Founder and Chief Pilot of New York-based Illuminaero, pointed out that light show aircraft execute pre-programmed, static coordinates computed on ground stations long before takeoff.
“Light show aircraft execute trajectories computed before takeoff and played back under GNSS positioning inside a predefined geofence,” he wrote. “They do not sense one another, do not coordinate autonomously, do not avoid collisions dynamically, and do not respond to changes in operational or threat environments… An illuminated aircraft weighing a small fraction of the Category (1) threshold, flying a predetermined path inside a geofence, is closer to a firework that can be rehearsed than to a weapons platform.”
Vautin also raised a major technical flaw regarding “UAS critical components” like brushless motors, bare microcontrollers, and sensors, noting that basic parts hold no FCC authorizations in the first place and present zero risk when running open-source code:
“A brushless motor is copper, steel, and magnets,” he wrote. “It executes no code and stores no data… Flight controllers and ESCs in the open-source ecosystem run publicly published, community-audited firmware (ArduPilot, PX4, AM32, Bluejay) that the operator, not the manufacturer, selects and flashes.”
Glenn Reese, Head of Celestial Drone Shows, reiterated that entertainment aircraft do not possess tactical swarm capabilities.
“Celestial’s show aircraft function essentially as airborne pixels,” he wrote. “They are not designed, in their entertainment function, to select objectives, identify or track targets, or collaboratively determine how to accomplish a military mission. A regulatory definition focused on autonomous, adaptive, or tactical swarm behavior would therefore better address the national-security concerns.”
Similarly, Taylor Woodall, Founder and CEO of Skyworx Drone Shows warned that banning replacement parts would ground safe fleets or force operators into untested setups.
“Original equipment manufacturers test their hardware, firmware, and show-control software together as one integrated system, and substituting in untested equipment, American-made or not, risks compromising the safety of a show,” he wrote. “Cutting off Skyworx’s access to this equipment before comparable domestic alternatives exist would not make Americans safer. It would force Skyworx to fly higher risk alternatives, or ground shows altogether.”
DJI weighs in with concerns of statutory overreach and lack of due process
The world’s largest commercial drone manufacturer, SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. (you know them as DJi), submitted extensive legal comments through counsel at Cooley LLP, arguing that the entire proceeding is built on a legally deficient foundation that exceeds the FCC’s statutory mandate.
DJI argued that the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) invented the seven “military-grade” capability categories out of thin air, noting that they appear nowhere in the Executive Branch’s underlying December 2025 National Security Determination (NSD).
“That label is misleading,” according to DJI’s public comments. “The seven categories that term encompasses describe ubiquitous commercial capabilities found in thousands of products sold for routine agricultural, public-safety, and recreational purposes… The NSD contains no capability-based classification and never mentions the term ‘military-grade.’ The NSD’s determination is binary and provenance-based… The seven ‘military-grade’ categories that OET and PSHSB have invented for the Notice are thus an entirely post-hoc creation of the Bureaus.”
DJI also argued that drones and basic mechanical components are not “communications equipment or services” as defined under the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act. DJI has also argued that the proposed revocation of equipment authorizations without specific empirical assessments violates due process and the Commission’s own regulations under 47 C.F.R. § 2.939(e).
What’s next for the FCC’s proposed rule?
Clearly, there’s a massive disconnect between federal security mandates and the daily operational realities of American drone pilots.
The government will now have to review the thousands of filings now in the record. From there, all eyes are on the Commission to see whether it will rescind the notice, narrow the “military-grade” definitions, or carve out critical exemptions for civilian entertainment, open-source components, and commercial enterprise operations.
What are your thoughts on the proposed FCC restrictions? Let me know in the comments below!
The post Industry pushes back: Public comments flood the FCC over proposed “military-grade” foreign drone ban appeared first on The Drone Girl.