Countering CCP Drones Act vs. NDAA Section 1709: What Actually Became Law?

September 9, 2026

Last updated: September 9, 2026

CURRENT STATUS — SEPTEMBER 9, 2026
The standalone House bill known as the Countering CCP Drones Act, H.R. 2864, passed the House in September 2024 and was referred to the Senate. The operative federal mechanism that later became law came through Section 1709 of the FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 118-159, enacted December 23, 2024. Section 1709 required a national-security evaluation of specified DJI, Autel, and related communications or video-surveillance equipment and tied the result to the FCC Covered List. The FCC subsequently acted on December 22, 2025 after receiving a national-security determination.

U.S.A. FIRST — Why So Many DJI “Ban Bill” Articles Are Now Out of Date

For more than a year, much of the internet described DJI’s U.S. future through one phrase:

“The Countering CCP Drones Act.”

That made sense while H.R. 2864 was moving through Congress. The bill had an unmistakable purpose: amend the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act so certain equipment and services produced or provided by DJI would be added to the FCC’s Covered List.

The House passed the bill on September 9, 2024.

But legislative headlines often survive longer than legislative text.

By late 2024, the most important question was no longer simply whether H.R. 2864 would become law in the exact form passed by the House. Congress enacted a different mechanism inside the FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act, specifically Section 1709. That provision required an appropriate national-security agency to evaluate specified communications or video-surveillance equipment and services associated with DJI, Autel, and certain related entities.

The December 2025 FCC action that reshaped the U.S. drone market flowed through that enacted framework and a broader Executive Branch national-security determination.

So when someone asks in 2026:

“Did the Countering CCP Drones Act pass?”

the most useful answer is not a one-word yes or no.

The useful answer is:

The House passed H.R. 2864, but the final federal mechanism that became law was Section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA. That mechanism led into the national-security review and the December 2025 FCC Covered List action.

This article traces that path.

The Short Answer

The Countering CCP Drones Act, H.R. 2864, was a DJI-focused bill in the 118th Congress. It passed the House on September 9, 2024 and was received in the Senate the next day. Its full title described an amendment to the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act to add certain DJI equipment and services to the Covered List.

The standalone bill did not become the final law in that exact form.

Instead, Congress enacted Section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA on December 23, 2024. Section 1709 required an appropriate national-security agency, within one year, to determine whether specified communications or video-surveillance equipment or services produced by DJI, Autel, and related entities posed an unacceptable national-security risk. The statute connected that determination to the FCC Covered List and also contained a backstop mechanism if the required review was not completed by the statutory deadline.

On December 21, 2025, an Executive Branch interagency body delivered a national-security determination. On December 22, the FCC announced that it was adding foreign-produced UAS and UAS critical components, along with the equipment and services listed in Section 1709, to the Covered List.

The FCC emphasized that the December action applied to new covered device models going forward and did not stop consumers from using previously purchased drones or prevent continued sale, import, or marketing of device models already authorized at that point.

That distinction is the foundation for understanding what actually became law.

Executive Summary: H.R. 2864 vs. Section 1709

Question	Countering CCP Drones Act — H.R. 2864	FY2025 NDAA Section 1709
What was it?	Standalone DJI-focused House bill	Provision enacted inside the FY2025 NDAA
Legislative status	Passed House Sept. 9, 2024; referred to Senate	Became law Dec. 23, 2024
Core approach	Directly amend the Secure Networks Act to add certain DJI equipment/services to the Covered List	Require national-security evaluation of specified DJI, Autel, and related equipment/services, with Covered List consequences
Named DJI?	Yes	Yes
Included Autel?	The House bill was principally DJI-focused	Yes, Section 1709 expressly included Autel
Immediate blanket civilian ownership ban?	No	No
Automatically grounded existing drones?	No	No
Connected to FCC Covered List?	Yes	Yes
What became operationally important?	The policy concept and legislative pressure	The enacted review mechanism and subsequent FCC action
What happened next?	Did not become the final standalone law in its House-passed form	National-security determination followed; FCC updated Covered List Dec. 22, 2025

The Key Distinction

“The House passed the Countering CCP Drones Act” is true.

“The Countering CCP Drones Act became the final law exactly as the House passed it” is not the best description of what happened.

The enacted path that ultimately mattered was FY2025 NDAA Section 1709 → national-security determination → FCC Covered List action.

What Was the Countering CCP Drones Act?

H.R. 2864 was introduced in the 118th Congress under the short title Countering CCP Drones Act.

Its purpose was direct. The bill sought to amend the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 to provide for adding certain equipment and services produced or provided by DJI Technologies to the FCC’s list of covered communications equipment or services.

That Covered List is not merely a government-shopping blacklist. It is part of a communications-security framework used by the FCC when equipment or services are determined to pose an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security or the security and safety of U.S. persons.

In May 2024, the House Energy and Commerce Committee reported H.R. 2864 favorably and recommended that it pass. The legislation attracted substantial attention from national-security advocates, drone users, public-safety organizations, industry groups, farmers, and DJI.

Supporters argued that U.S. dependence on Chinese-made drone technology presented cybersecurity, surveillance, data-security, and supply-chain risks.

Opponents and critics warned that abruptly restricting a dominant supplier could disrupt public safety, agriculture, infrastructure inspection, mapping, small businesses, and other users that had built operations around DJI equipment.

Those competing arguments would continue through later policy fights even after the legislative vehicle changed.

The House Passed H.R. 2864 in September 2024

On September 9, 2024, the House passed the Countering CCP Drones Act.

The official GovInfo record identifies that version as H.R. 2864, Engrossed in House. The bill was then received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on September 10.

That matters because many articles published at the time used language such as:

“DJI ban passes”
“Congress moves to ban DJI”
“DJI added to FCC blacklist”
“DJI drones could soon be banned”

Some of those headlines accurately described the political direction but blurred the difference between House passage and enactment into law.

A bill passing one chamber is not yet a statute.

The next important development came through the annual defense authorization process.

What Actually Became Law: FY2025 NDAA Section 1709

The Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025 became Public Law 118-159 on December 23, 2024.

Inside it was Section 1709 — Analysis of Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems Entities.

Rather than simply reproducing the House bill’s structure, Section 1709 created a national-security evaluation mechanism.

The statute required an “appropriate national security agency,” not later than one year after enactment, to determine whether specified communications or video-surveillance equipment or services posed an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security or to the security and safety of U.S. persons.

The named equipment included communications or video-surveillance equipment produced by DJI Technologies and Autel Robotics, along with categories involving certain subsidiaries, affiliates, partners, joint ventures, or entities with specified relationships.

The structure mattered because Congress did not merely tell the FCC to make a political judgment on its own. It placed the national-security determination at the center of the process.

Why the deadline mattered

Section 1709 was enacted on December 23, 2024. The statute gave the national-security review a one-year window.

That generated an enormous amount of discussion in 2025 about the approaching December deadline. Some commentary described a looming “automatic DJI ban.” That shorthand was incomplete.

The statute’s backstop provisions were designed to ensure that the Covered List process would not simply disappear if the required review failed to occur. But the actual 2025 outcome was not a missed-review scenario.

A national-security determination was made.

That is why the December 2025 FCC action should be analyzed from the determination that actually occurred, not only from hypothetical articles written months earlier about what might happen if no agency acted.

The Legislative Path in One Timeline

April 2023

H.R. 2864 is introduced in the House.

May 7, 2024

House Energy and Commerce reports the bill favorably.

September 9, 2024

The House passes the Countering CCP Drones Act.

September 10, 2024

The bill is received in the Senate and referred to committee.

December 23, 2024

The FY2025 NDAA becomes Public Law 118-159, including Section 1709.

2025

The required national-security review period runs. Industry, government users, drone operators, and manufacturers debate what the coming decision could mean.

December 21, 2025

The FCC later reports receiving a national-security determination from an Executive Branch interagency body with appropriate national-security expertise.

December 22, 2025

The FCC announces the addition of foreign-produced UAS and UAS critical components, and Section 1709 equipment and services, to the Covered List.

2026

The FCC creates exemptions and Conditional Approval pathways and later opens proceedings considering restrictions on continued importation and marketing of certain previously authorized foreign UAS and critical components.

This sequence is much more accurate than collapsing two years of legislation and rulemaking into “Congress banned DJI.”

What Section 1709 Required the National-Security Agency to Evaluate

Section 1709 focused on whether specified communications or video-surveillance equipment or services posed an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security or to the security and safety of U.S. persons.

That phrase connects the statute to the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act framework.

The named DJI and Autel equipment was not evaluated in a vacuum. The U.S. government had already been expressing concern about foreign UAS supply chains, sensitive data, cybersecurity, surveillance, and dependence on foreign manufacturing.

By 2025, federal drone policy was moving in two directions at once:

accelerate drone deployment and domestic innovation, while also reduce dependence on foreign systems considered higher risk.

Section 1709 became one of the mechanisms translating that policy into an FCC equipment-authorization consequence.

What Happened on December 22, 2025?

This is the point where legislative history became operational market policy.

The FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau released DA 25-1086 on December 22, 2025.

The notice said the FCC had received a National Security Determination from an Executive Branch interagency body with appropriate national-security expertise. Based on that determination, the FCC updated the Covered List to include:

UAS and UAS critical components produced in foreign countries, subject to later exceptions and determinations; and
communications and video-surveillance equipment and services listed in Section 1709(a)(1) of the FY2025 NDAA.

The FCC said the national-security determination identified risks including unauthorized surveillance, sensitive-data exfiltration, supply-chain vulnerabilities, and other threats.

The important legal consequence was equipment authorization.

Under the FCC’s rules, covered equipment is prohibited from receiving new equipment authorizations.

But the FCC also drew an important line

The agency’s December 22 fact sheet said the action did not affect consumers’ ability to continue using drones they had previously purchased or acquired.

It also said the decision did not prevent retailers from continuing to sell, import, or market device models that had already been approved through the FCC equipment-authorization process.

The December 2025 change applied to new device models going forward.

That is why the accurate description is not:

“Every DJI drone became illegal on December 22.”

It is closer to:

The federal government used the Covered List framework to sharply constrain the path for new covered foreign-produced drone models while preserving the installed base and previously authorized models under that action.

Why December 2025 Was Bigger Than the Original Bill Debate

The original Countering CCP Drones Act focused public attention on DJI.

The December 2025 action was broader in an important way: the national-security determination addressed foreign-produced UAS and UAS critical components generally, subject to pathways for specific determinations and later exemptions.

The FCC’s notice referenced critical-component classes including communications systems, flight controllers, ground control stations, controllers, navigation systems, batteries, smart batteries, and motors.

That meant the policy discussion was no longer only about whether DJI as one company should appear on a list.

It had become a broader question about the origin, security, authorization, and future supply chain of U.S. drone technology.

For agriculture, that is a major distinction. A DJI Agras platform depends on a larger ecosystem: aircraft, flight-control electronics, battery systems, motors, remote controllers, navigation, sensors, charging systems, and replacement components.

The regulatory architecture increasingly reaches that ecosystem rather than just the logo on the airframe.

New Models vs. Previously Authorized Models

The December 2025 action created a line between future model authorization and the already-installed market.

A new covered model that needs FCC equipment authorization faces the Covered List restrictions.

An older model that already held authorization was not automatically stripped of that authorization by the December action.

That is why DJI aircraft continued to exist, operate, and in some circumstances be sold even after the dramatic December headlines.

But that was not the end of the story.

In October 2025, the FCC had already established procedures that could later be used to limit the scope of existing authorizations for covered equipment. In 2026, the Commission began using those procedures in additional proceedings.

That is where the July 2026 “military-grade” UAS proposal enters the picture.

The July 2026 FCC Proposal Is a Separate Next Step

On July 21, 2026, the FCC released DA 26-758 in PS Docket No. 26-189.

That notice proposes restrictions on continued importation and marketing of certain previously authorized foreign-produced UAS and UAS critical components that are on the Covered List and meet a proposed “military-grade” definition.

The proposed categories include UAS weighing 55 pounds or more on takeoff and UAS capable of dispensing FAA-defined “economic poison,” making the proceeding particularly relevant to agricultural spray drones.

The proposal also includes thermal imaging, LiDAR, docking stations, defense-article integration, and swarming capabilities.

Importantly, the FCC says the proposal would not prevent continued use or operation of already-purchased equipment. It proposes a 180-day transition for affected importation and marketing after publication of an adopting action in the Federal Register.

As of September 9, 2026, that proceeding remains a proposal.

Why this belongs after Section 1709 in the story

Section 1709 helped establish the process that led into the December 2025 Covered List environment.

The July 2026 proceeding asks a different question:

Should some equipment that was already authorized before these newer restrictions also lose future importation and marketing privileges?

That is a second-stage market-access question, not simply a re-vote on H.R. 2864.

Countering CCP Drones Act, Section 1709, and the 100% Tariff Are Three Different Things

The 2026 Section 232 drone tariff is frequently thrown into the same “DJI ban” bucket.

It should not be.

Policy	Core question
Countering CCP Drones Act / H.R. 2864	Should certain DJI equipment/services be added to the Covered List?
FY2025 NDAA Section 1709	What must the national-security review process do regarding specified DJI, Autel, and related equipment/services?
FCC Covered List rules	What equipment can receive FCC authorization, and under later procedures, what importation/marketing limits can apply?
Section 232 tariff program	What additional import duties apply to covered UAS and components?

A product can face high tariffs without being prohibited from FCC authorization. A product can face FCC authorization problems regardless of tariff rate. An existing owner can continue using equipment even when future imports become more difficult.

For buyers, dealers, and operators, the overlap matters—but only after the rules are separated correctly.

Did Congress “Ban DJI”?

That phrase is too imprecise for a serious 2026 answer.

Congress enacted a mechanism that expressly named DJI and Autel equipment for national-security evaluation and tied the result to the Covered List. The Executive Branch then made a national-security determination, and the FCC updated the Covered List.

Those are substantial restrictions. They have materially changed DJI’s ability to introduce new covered device models into the normal U.S. equipment-authorization system.

But Congress did not simply enact a one-sentence law declaring:

“All DJI drones are illegal to own, operate, or possess.”

That did not happen.

The distinction matters for everyone from a hobbyist to a farmer managing a six-figure fleet.

What This Means for DJI Agras Owners

For an existing Agras owner, the legislative history matters mainly because it explains why future product access is less predictable than existing operation.

If you already lawfully own a T25, T50, T70P, T100, or another Agras platform, the FCC actions discussed here do not create a blanket order to ground it.

Your practical risks are more likely to emerge through:

future replacement-aircraft availability;
ability of newer generations to receive FCC authorization;
importation and marketing restrictions if the 2026 proposal becomes final;
component and battery availability;
tariffs and landed cost;
service knowledge and repairability;
exact approval pathways for specific equipment.

That is why Ares Acres treats the regulatory cluster as connected to its technical content.

Understanding the law explains why fleet support matters more. Manuals, diagnostics, compatible components, and accurate model identification explain how to keep the fleet productive.

Related Ares Acres resources

What Buyers Should Verify Instead of Asking “Is DJI Banned?”

A buyer evaluating a high-value aircraft in 2026 should ask questions that lead to verifiable answers.

What is the exact aircraft model and configuration? Does that model already have the relevant FCC authorization? Where is the specific unit located? Is it already in U.S. inventory or does it still need to cross the border? Is an exemption or Conditional Approval relevant? What duties apply to the actual shipment? Which batteries, chargers, generators, controllers, and replacement parts support that aircraft? What service path exists after delivery?

Those questions are more useful than asking a seller for a blanket guarantee that “DJI is legal” or “DJI is banned.”

The regulatory environment is now too layered for either slogan.

Why This History Matters for SEO and for Operators

There are thousands of pages online written at different points in the legislative process.

An article from May 2024 may correctly say the Countering CCP Drones Act is still in committee.

An article from September 2024 may correctly say the House passed it.

An article from early 2025 may describe the one-year Section 1709 review deadline as a future event.

An article from December 2025 may describe the Covered List update.

A 2026 article may be discussing restrictions on previously authorized equipment.

All of those pages can appear in the same search result.

That is why a person searching “Did the DJI ban pass?” can receive several answers that were each accurate on publication day but are no longer complete.

A current authority page must show the sequence.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did the Countering CCP Drones Act pass the House?

Yes. H.R. 2864 passed the House on September 9, 2024.

Did H.R. 2864 become law in the exact House-passed form?

The better description is that the standalone bill passed the House and was referred to the Senate, while the operative enacted mechanism came through FY2025 NDAA Section 1709.

What is NDAA Section 1709?

Section 1709 of Public Law 118-159 required an appropriate national-security agency to evaluate specified communications or video-surveillance equipment and services associated with DJI, Autel, and certain related entities for unacceptable national-security risk and connected the result to the FCC Covered List framework.

Was there really a one-year deadline?

Yes. Section 1709 required the national-security determination not later than one year after enactment on December 23, 2024.

Did the government complete the review?

The FCC reported receiving a National Security Determination on December 21, 2025 and announced its Covered List update on December 22.

Did Section 1709 make every DJI drone illegal?

No. The FCC’s December 2025 action specifically preserved consumers’ continued use of previously purchased drones and, under that action, continued sale/import/marketing of previously authorized models.

Can DJI release new models in the United States?

New covered foreign-produced models face the FCC Covered List equipment-authorization restrictions unless an applicable exemption, Conditional Approval, or other determination changes their status.

What is the July 2026 military-grade proposal?

It is a separate FCC proceeding considering restrictions on continued importation and marketing of certain previously authorized foreign-produced Covered List UAS and critical components based on proposed capability categories.

Is the 100% drone tariff part of Section 1709?

No. The Section 232 tariff program is separate and concerns import duties rather than the FCC equipment-authorization mechanism.

Can I keep flying a DJI drone I already own?

The FCC actions discussed here do not impose a blanket prohibition on continued operation of lawfully purchased, previously authorized DJI equipment. FAA and other applicable operating rules still apply.

The Bottom Line

The history is easier to understand once the legislative vehicles are separated.

H.R. 2864, the Countering CCP Drones Act, passed the House in September 2024.

Congress then enacted FY2025 NDAA Section 1709 in December 2024.

Section 1709 required a national-security review tied to the FCC Covered List.

A national-security determination was made in December 2025.

The FCC then added foreign-produced UAS, UAS critical components, and Section 1709 equipment and services to the Covered List.

The December 2025 action constrained new covered device models but preserved continued use of previously purchased drones under that action.

In 2026, the FCC began separate proceedings that could go further for some previously authorized equipment.

That is what actually happened.

It is more complicated than “the ban passed,” but it is also much more useful for an operator deciding what can be bought, imported, supported, or flown.

Buying, Maintaining, or Planning a DJI Agras Fleet?

Regulatory history matters when it changes an operational decision. Ares Acres focuses on that final mile: the exact aircraft, the exact component, the support path, and what an operator needs to keep equipment productive.

Read the Main FCC Guide | Read the Farmers Guide | Use the Parts Finder | Contact Ares Acres

Primary Sources

U.S. Government Publishing Office, H.R. 2864 (EH), Countering CCP Drones Act, Engrossed in House September 9, 2024.
U.S. Government Publishing Office, H.R. 2864 (RFS), received in Senate September 10, 2024.
Public Law 118-159, FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act, Section 1709, enacted December 23, 2024.
U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel, statutory note reproducing Section 1709 — Analysis of Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems Entities.
Federal Communications Commission, DA 25-1086, December 22, 2025.
Federal Communications Commission, December 22, 2025 Covered List fact sheet.
Federal Communications Commission, DA 26-758, July 21, 2026, PS Docket No. 26-189.

Disclaimer: This article is for general educational and commercial-planning purposes. It is not legal, legislative, regulatory, customs, procurement, aviation, or tax advice. Later statutes, agency decisions, court rulings, equipment-specific determinations, and import facts can change the analysis for a particular product or transaction.

Back to blog